AMBIKA CONCAST PVT LTD AND ANR vs STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS Advocate - Gaurav Goel — CWP/26537/2022
Case under Constitution of India Section 1. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 12th May 2026.
CNR: PHHC011319282022
Filing Number
CWP/52844/2022
Filing Date
17-Nov-2022
Registration No
CWP/26537/2022
Registration Date
17-Nov-2022
Judge
Mr. Justice Vikas Suri , Mr. Justice Suvir Sehgal
Coram
Mr. Justice Vikas Suri , Mr. Justice Suvir Sehgal
Bench Type
Double
Category
31.11 - FINANCIAL CORPORATION UOI D.B. ( 558 )
Sub-Category
( 944 )
Judicial Branch
WRITS -I BRANCH
Decision Date
12-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
--DISMISSED
Last updated 01-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.AMBIKA CONCAST PVT LTD AND ANR
Adv. VIVEK GOYAL
-
2.DEEPAK ARORA
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS Advocate - Gaurav Goel
-
2.STATE BANK OF INDIA, SME BRANCH
-
3.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
Adv. A.G. PUNJAB
-
4.NAIB TEHSILDAR CUM EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
12-May-2026
Mr. Justice Vikas Suri,mr. Justice Suvir SehgalView PDF
Case Summary: CWP-26537-2022 The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed Ambika Concast Private Limited's petition against State Bank of India for non-prosecution on 12.05.2026. Despite multiple adjournments and opportunities to present arguments since 2023, the petitioners' counsel repeatedly failed to appear or advance arguments, citing various reasons including unavailability and a misplaced brief. The court dismissed the case in default but granted liberty to the petitioners to reapproach the court after reconstructing their case documents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
21-Nov-2022
Other
-
17-Nov-2022
Case filed
Registration No. CWP/26537/2022
Case Summary: CWP-26537-2022 The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed Ambika Concast Private Limited's petition against State Bank of India for non-prosecution on 12.05.2026. Despite multiple adjournments and opportunities to present arguments since 2023, the petitioners' counsel repeatedly failed to appear or advance arguments, citing various reasons including unavailability and a misplaced brief. The court dismissed the case in default but granted liberty to the petitioners to reapproach the court after reconstructing their case documents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts