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
3 paragraphs · 107 wordsM. A. No. 298 of 2022 has been preferred by the original petitioner for change of name of the petitioner which was permitted vide order dated 14.7.2022. Thus, that application stood disposed of.
Mr. Aditya Krishna appearing on behalf of Mr. Sharath Sampath states that their name has been wrongly shown as counsel for respondent no.1 as they are not appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1. Hence, their name may be deleted. The prayer is allowed. Their name should not be shown as respondent no. 1 in future causelist/proceedings.
List this Broadcasting Petition along with M.A. No. 73 of 2022 under the same head on 7.10.2022.