High CourtsSingle Bench

Arun Kumar Gupta vs State Of Sikkim & Ors.

Sikkim High Court · Decided on 21 April 2025 · Citation: (2025) 04 SIK CK 0684

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 49 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 131 words

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J

1.

Although Mr. S.K. Chettri, learned Government Advocate for the respondents submits that the counter affidavit has been filed, the office note sheet of the Registry records that it has not been filed. The learned Government Advocate promptly says that it may have been defective and that he had cured the defect once. It is the duty of the parties filing pleadings to ensure that defects are cured well within the prescribed time so that the pleadings are duly placed before the court.

2.

The learned Government Advocate seeks two days’ time to do so. Time permitted. Failure to cure the defects within the next two days’ shall attract a cost of Rs.5000/-. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed thereafter, within four weeks.

3.

List on 27.05.2025.