HEM RAJ(Not Applicable) vs NIPUN JINDAL AND ANOTHER(Not Applicable) — COPC/436/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 215. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010182192026

Filing Number

COPC/15706/2026

Filing Date

03-Apr-2026

Registration No

COPC/436/2026

Registration Date

23-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 215

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HEM RAJ(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Ashok Kumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NIPUN JINDAL AND ANOTHER(Not Applicable)

    Adv. ,Dheeraj Kumar Vashishat 1123

  2. 2.MAneet Verma(Not Applicable)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh VermaView PDF

    Case Summary: Hem Raj filed a petition alleging non-compliance with a prior court judgment (CWP No.9506 of 2024). The respondents' counsel produced evidence that leave encashment of Rs.8,37,500 and DCRG of Rs.8,25,937 had already been paid to the petitioner via cheque dated 07.11.2025, and undertook to pay the pending interest within three weeks. The court closed the petition as substantively resolved, while preserving the petitioner's right to revive it if grievances remain unaddressed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    Notice Before Admission

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma

  4. 03-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. COPC/436/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Hem Raj filed a petition alleging non-compliance with a prior court judgment (CWP No.9506 of 2024). The respondents' counsel produced evidence that leave encashment of Rs.8,37,500 and DCRG of Rs.8,25,937 had already been paid to the petitioner via cheque dated 07.11.2025, and undertook to pay the pending interest within three weeks. The court closed the petition as substantively resolved, while preserving the petitioner's right to revive it if grievances remain unaddressed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case