In a writ petition, the respondent counsel conceded that the petitioner's seized ultrasound machine was released per an earlier order; the remaining petition was disposed of as nothing further survived.
No relief was granted; the petition was disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO.8453 OF 2004
Larsen & Toubro Limited
.. Petitioner
vs
Union of India & Ors.. Respondents
Mr.F.Sayyad i/b Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co
for Petitioner
Mr.V.G.Mujumdar for Respondent no. 2
CORAM : A.P.SHAH AND
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, JJ
DATE:2ND NOVEMBER, 2004
P.C.
1. Heard Advocates.
2. Mr. Muzumdar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent no. 2 fairly conceded that under the
Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques
(Prohibition) Act 1994, clinics are required to be
2
registered and not the ultra sound machines. He
stated that the petitioner’s ultra sound machine
which was seized by the Corporation has been
released as per order of this Court and the seizure
notice stands withdrawn.
3. In view of the statement of Mr. Muzumdar,
nothing further survives in the petition. Petition
is accordingly disposed of.
A.P.SHAH, J
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J
Larsen & Toubro Limited
Union of India
A.P.SHAH
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court