Disposed
Xlo India Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Bombay HCWP/23/2005
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
CONTINUATION SHEET NO. CONTINUATION SHEET…
What the court decided
AI extract
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.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.23 OF 2005
--------------------------------------------------------Office notes, office : Memoranda of Coram, : appearances, Court’s : Court’s or Judge’s Orders orders or directions : & Registrar’s orders. : . --------------------------------------------------------Mr. R.A. Shaikh for the petitioners. Ms. Ranjana Parikh for respondents.
CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J. DATED: 24TH FEBRUARY, 2005.
P.C. :-
Not on board. Mentioned urgently.
The learned counsel for the parties state that the petitioners and the respondents have amicably settled the dispute. They state that respondent 1 - State of Maharashtra is a formal party. The consent term duly signed by Mr. G.M. Kishinchandani, the Director of the petitioners and respondent 2 and their respective advocates are taken on record and marked ‘X’. The resolution authorising Mr. Kishinchandani to
negotiate
with the landlord
on
behalf
of the petitioners is also taken on
record and marked ‘Y’.
Decree in terms of consent term.
Petition disposed of in terms of the consent term.
C.C. expedited.
(SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)
Petitioners
Respondents
Ranjana Desai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court