AJAY K. AGRAWAL vs UNION OF INDIA . — W.P.(Crl.) No. 6/2006

Case under Section X. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010013652006

Filing Date

12-Jan-2006

Registration No

W.P.(Crl.) No. 6/2006

Diary Number

1365/2006

Order Date

01-Mar-2012

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 16-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Section X

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AJAY K. AGRAWAL

    Adv. PETITIONER-IN-PERSON

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA .

    Adv. SUSHMA SURI V. K. VERMA NIKHIL NAYYAR (Dead / Retired / Elevated) SUSMITA LAL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Mar-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 27-Feb-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 30-Mar-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 26-Mar-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 23-Mar-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 16-Feb-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 11-Feb-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 22-Jan-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 20-Nov-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 29-Sep-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 13-Jul-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 05-Sep-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 16-Apr-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 26-Nov-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 20-Aug-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 16-Jul-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 13-Apr-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 26-Feb-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  20. 12-Feb-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  21. 20-Nov-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  22. 12-Sep-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  23. 21-Aug-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  24. 12-Jan-2006

    Case filed

    Registration No. W.P.(Crl.) No. 6/2006

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: W.P.(Crl.) No. 6/2006 - Ajay K. Agrawal v. Union of India Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in default and for want of prosecution on March 1, 2012. The petitioner, who appeared in person on the previous hearing date (February 27, 2012), failed to appear when the matter was called for hearing despite the court waiting for a sufficient and long time. The respondent's counsel also argued that the petition had become infructuous. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case