Skip to content
Order
  • Library
  • Features
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
Get started
Book a Demo

Order

At Order.law, we’re building India’s leading AI-powered legal research platform.Designed for solo lawyers, law firms, and corporate legal teams, Order helps you find relevant case law, analyze judgments, and draft with confidence faster and smarter.

Product

  • Features
  • Blog

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms

Library

  • Acts
  • Judgments
© 2025 Order. All rights reserved.
  1. Home/
  2. Library/
  3. High Court Of Chhattisgarh/
  4. 2024/
  5. October

Daduram @ Daddu vs. Santosh Tiwari

Decided on 25 October 2024• Citation: MAC/2147/2019• High Court of Chhattisgarh
Download PDF

Read Judgment


                                                            2024:CGHC:42501         
                                                                      NAFR          
                          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR                      
                                  MAC  No . 2147 of 2019                            
                  Daduram @ Daddu S/o Kartikram Nirmalkar Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward
                  No. 4, Jamatpara, Chhuikhadan, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
                                                                  ... Appellant     
                                            versus                                  
               1. Santosh Tiwari S/o Yaduvansh Prasad Tiwari Aged About 50 Years R/o Civil
                  Line, Raja Talab, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.         
               2. Kanker Roadways Private Limited, In Front of Gandhi Udyan Civil Line,
                  Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.                             
               3. The New India Insurances Company Limited Divisional Officer, Raipur
                  Chhattisgarh. (Insurer ).                                         
                                                              ---- Respondents      
                  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       For Appellant           : None.                              
                       For Respondents         : None                               
                  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge                  
                                      Order on Board                                
             25.10.2024                                                             
               1. When the matter is called out for hearing, none appeared on behalf of
                  the parties. Even in the second call, there is no representation on behalf
                  of the parties.                                                   
               2. In view of the above, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss
                  the appeal for want of prosecution.                               
               3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.     
                  Sd/-                                                              
                                                         Sd/-                       
                                                 (Arvind Kumar Verma)               
                                                         Judge                      
         J/-