Dismissed¶13

M/S Pure Power Turbo Batteries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U P and 4 Others

Allahabad HC17 Mar 2026WRIC/24441/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Infructuous dismissal of writ petition for non-appearance/non-prosecution; stale cause of action; efflux of time; interim order vacated; liberty to file recall/recalling application within six weeks; WRIT - C No. 24441 of 2018; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; M/S Pure Power Turbo Batteries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P.; Tripathi and Kunal Ravi Singh, JJ.; order dated March 18, 2026; no merits adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous; interim order, if any, vacated; liberty to the petitioner to move an application for recalling the order within six weeks. ¶13

M/S Pure Power Turbo Batteries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U P and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 24441 of 2018

¶3

M/S Pure Power Turbo Batteries Pvt. Ltd.

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U P And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Anay Kumar (Senior Advoc	Srivastava, P.N. Saxena ate)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Anuj Pratap Narain Singh,	Singh, C.S.C., Mahesh Prashant Vardhan, Utpal
	Chatterji, Vive	k Verma

¶9

Court No. - 21

¶10

HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

¶11

The matter, listed on top ten cases, was taken up in the revised list. However, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner to press the petition, nor has any adjournment slip been moved. Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Mahesh Narain Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4; Shri Gopal Chandra Saxena, learned Standing Counsel for State respondent and Shri Utpal Chatterji, learned counsel for respondent no.5 are present.

¶12

In the absence of any effective representation, it appears that the cause of action has become stale and the writ petition has been rendered infructuous by efflux of time.

¶13

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶14

In case the petitioner feels that the matter survives, liberty is granted to her to move an application for recalling this order within six weeks from today.

¶15

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

¶16

March 18, 2026

¶17

SP/

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Pure Power Turbo Batteries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Pure Power Turbo Batteries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jibareel Ahmed vs the State of Uttar Pradesh and 7 Others

Vipin Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gajey Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mr. Gaurav Chaturvedi and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vishal Bagla Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others

The Nagrik Sahakari Awas Samiti Ltd. Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and Others