RAM KRISHAN AND ORS. KAPIL GUPTA vs VINOD GUPTA EXE.ENGINEER P.H.E. — CPSW/25/2017

Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed for Non Prosecution on 04th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 21-Oct-2017

CNR: JKHC020063412017

Filing Number

CPSW/19579/2016

Filing Date

12-Jan-2017

Registration No

CPSW/25/2017

Registration Date

12-Jan-2017

Judge

Hon'ble The Chief Justice

Coram

Hon'ble The Chief Justice

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

SB CONTEMPT PETITION ( 113 )

Sub-Category

SWP ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

SERVICE WRIT PETITION (SWP)

Decision Date

04-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Dismissed for Non Prosecution

Last updated 08-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAM KRISHAN AND ORS. KAPIL GUPTA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.VINOD GUPTA EXE.ENGINEER P.H.E.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

    Case Summary: CPSW No. 25/2017 The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dismissed the petition for non-prosecution after nearly a decade of pending proceedings. The court found that some petitioners had already received benefits under relevant PHE orders, one petitioner was not employed by the respondent, and others were ineligible as they were regularized after April 1, 1996, contrary to the benefit criteria. With no petitioner's representative present to substantiate surviving claims, the court concluded nothing substantive remained and dismissed the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 21-Oct-2017

    For Orders After Notice

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tashi Rabstan

  4. 12-Jan-2017

    Case filed

    Registration No. CPSW/25/2017

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CPSW No. 25/2017 The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dismissed the petition for non-prosecution after nearly a decade of pending proceedings. The court found that some petitioners had already received benefits under relevant PHE orders, one petitioner was not employed by the respondent, and others were ineligible as they were regularized after April 1, 1996, contrary to the benefit criteria. With no petitioner's representative present to substantiate surviving claims, the court concluded nothing substantive remained and dismissed the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case