SOSHIL KUMAR VAID Versus GOA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. SRISHTI AGNIHOTRI[R-2] (C.A. 7312/2019)

If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.

If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it to findcaseseasily@gmail.com — our support team will be glad to review and fix it.

FindCasesEasilyFindCasesEasily.comAI-Powered Case Law & Court Intelligence

Supreme Court of India

Unified case view

0 cases

Sort

Reading · C.A. 7312/2019

Case Record

C.A. 7312/2019

SOSHIL KUMAR VAID Versus GOA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. SRISHTI AGNIHOTRI[R-2]

REGISTRAR (Court & Building)

C.A.Appellate relief Civil appeals Delay

11 PDF renditions· 11 distinct judicial orders· 11 verified locally

Save

8Important Paragraphs
6Legal Principles
12Authorities
47Similar Cases

Case record

Research

What Happened

SOSHIL KUMAR VAID Versus GOA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.. C.A. 7312/2019 in the Supreme Court of India, CNR SCIN010237162019. Status on the court record: PENDING. This page is written from 11 order document(s) downloaded for this case, dated 2 September 2019 to 30 October 2023.

On 2 September 2019 the order records: The matter stands adjourned by a week as prayed for in the letter circulated by the learned counsel for the appellant.
On 13 September 2019 the order records: Delay condoned. Application seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order is allowed.
On 15 January 2020 the order records: Four weeks' time as a last chance is granted to Respondent Nos. 2 to file Counter Affidavit. Service is complete upon respondent No. 1, but no one has entered appearance on his behalf.
On 14 February 2020 the order records: In view of the letter circulated by learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 seeking adjournment for one week, the matter is adjourned for one week. (R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI) AR CUM PS BRANCH OFFICER
On 5 August 2022 the order records: It is stated that the mother of the learned arguing counsel for the appellant(s) is unwell. On request, list these matters for hearing on 16.09.2022.
On 2 November 2022 the order records: 1. Exemption applications are allowed. 2. Delay condoned in Civil Appeal (Diary) No.4135/2021.
On 17 July 2023 the order records: Despite due service on respondent no.1, there is no appearance. However, Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, Ld. AOR seeks for time to file vakalatnama and counter affidavit. Four weeks time, is granted for the said purpose. Respondent no.2 has already filed counter affidavit.
On 30 October 2023 the order records: Despite due service on respondent nos.1 to 3, there is no appearance. Hence, process the matter for listing before the Hon'ble Court, as per rules.

Issues Before Court

The orders on this record do not frame issues for decision.

Procedural History

2 September 2019. The matter stands adjourned by a week as prayed for in the letter circulated by the learned counsel for the appellant.
13 September 2019. Delay condoned. Application seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order is allowed.
15 January 2020. Four weeks' time as a last chance is granted to Respondent Nos. 2 to file Counter Affidavit. Service is complete upon respondent No. 1, but no one has entered appearance on his behalf.
14 February 2020. In view of the letter circulated by learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 seeking adjournment for one week, the matter is adjourned for one week. (R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI) AR CUM PS BRANCH OFFICER
5 July 2021. Tag with C.A. No. 7312/2019.
5 August 2022. It is stated that the mother of the learned arguing counsel for the appellant(s) is unwell. On request, list these matters for hearing on 16.09.2022.
16 September 2022. As prayed, list the matters on a NonMiscellaneous Day, i.e., 2112022. (VISHAL ANAND) (PREETHI T.C.) ASTT. REGISTRARcumPS
2 November 2022. 1. Exemption applications are allowed. 2. Delay condoned in Civil Appeal (Diary) No.4135/2021.
17 July 2023. Despite due service on respondent no.1, there is no appearance. However, Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, Ld. AOR seeks for time to file vakalatnama and counter affidavit. Four weeks time, is granted for the said purpose. Respondent no.2 has already filed counter affidavit.
31 August 2023. Await service in respect of respondent nos.1 to 3. List again on 30.10.2023.
30 October 2023. Despite due service on respondent nos.1 to 3, there is no appearance. Hence, process the matter for listing before the Hon'ble Court, as per rules.
Counsel named on these orders, not a complete vakalatnama, include the advocates listed below.

Advocates — Appellants: Ms. Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav, Mr. Shivan Desai, Mr. Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Mr. Rahul Gupta, Mrs. Vandana Gupta Advocates — Respondents: Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Mr. Anmol Gupta, Ms. Anmol Gupta, Ms. Sanjana G.Thomas, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Ms. Sanjana Grale Thomas, Ms. Ayushma Awasthi, Ms. Aarti Krupa Kumar, Ms. Namrata Caleb, Ms. Mantika Vohra, Ms. Sanjana Thomas, Ms. Namrata Sarah Caleb

Relief Sought & Granted

On 30 October 2023 the latest order on this record says: Despite due service on respondent nos.1 to 3, there is no appearance. Hence, process the matter for listing before the Hon'ble Court, as per rules.

The court record used for this archive still shows the case as not disposed. No final relief is added beyond the words of the orders above.

Subjects

Appellate relief Civil appeals Delay

Current position

PENDING · Latest recorded event 30 Oct 2023

Latest development

Latest recorded event 30 Oct 2023

Next hearing

24 Nov 2025

Important procedural note

Written only from 11 Supreme Court order file(s) for this case. No headnote or citation was added.