Primary sources · Order

VIVEK PRATAP VS. STATE OF U.P.

Supreme Court of India · 13 Aug 2026


Reproduced as issued. This is the text of the document as published by Supreme Court of India, ingested automatically and not edited, summarised or interpreted. Refer to the original document for the authoritative text.
Incomplete metadata. Some expected fields could not be read from the source. They are shown as missing rather than filled in:
  • Supreme Court adapter could not find a case number for diary number 271672026.

1

ITEM NO.26 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XI

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MS. GRACY L. BAWITLUNG

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17950/2026

VIVEK PRATAP & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. & ORS. Respondent(s)

Date : 13-08-2026 This petition was called on for hearing today.

For Petitioner(s) :

Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR

Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Adv.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv.

Mr. Robin Kumar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :

Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR

Mr. Sudhanshu Tewari, Adv.

Mr. Ankur Prakash, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Ld. Counsel who appeared on last date for Respondent No.1, has

not filed vakalatnama and counter affidavit, despite undertaking

given. However, service is complete, none has entered appearance.

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed the counter affidavit.

Counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent No.4 be filed on or

before 27.08.2026.

2

Service is complete on Respondent Nos. 5, 8, 10 and 12 but

none has entered appearance.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has filed an application for

deletion in respect of Respondent Nos. 6, 7, 9, 11 and 13.

List the application before the Hon’ble Judge-in-Chambers.

Copy of this Record of Proceedings be furnished to the

concerned learned Advocate-on-Record for information and

compliance.

GRACY L. BAWITLUNG

Registrar

AP

Primary source: Supreme Court of IndiaView original document →

← All primary sources

VIVEK PRATAP VS. STATE OF U.P. | JurisIntel