KAILASH CHAND vs RAMESHCHAND — C.A. No. 8363/2009
Case under Section III. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010275252007
Filing Date
21-Sep-2007
Registration No
C.A. No. 8363/2009
Diary Number
27525/2007
Order Date
06-Feb-2018
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 01-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.KAILASH CHAND
Adv. YASH PAL DHINGRA[P-1]
Respondent(s)
-
1.RAMESHCHAND
Adv. ABHIJAT P. MEDH (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [R-1] CHANDER SHEKHAR ASHRI[R-4] ABHIJAT P. MEDH (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [R-2]
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-Feb-2018
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-Feb-2018
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
-
26-Oct-2017
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
26-Oct-2017
Ordinary
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
-
25-Oct-2017
Ordinary
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
-
06-Sep-2017
Ordinary
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
-
05-Sep-2017
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
19-Jul-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
19-Jul-2016
Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF
-
19-Jul-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
26-Apr-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
26-Apr-2016
Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF
-
26-Apr-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
22-Jul-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-Jan-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
01-Oct-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-Dec-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
20-Apr-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
05-Aug-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-May-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
27-Mar-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
15-Feb-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Jan-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Sep-2007
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 8363/2009
Summary of C.A. No. 008363/2009 (Kailash Chand v. Ramesh Chand) On February 6, 2018, the Supreme Court dismissed Kailash Chand's civil appeal, finding no merit in the challenge to the High Court's order. The Court held that the High Court's reasoning was legally sound and required no interference. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts