Allowed

M/S. Turakhia Ferromet Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Feb 2007WP/1077/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed the petitioner's writ petition to be withdrawn. The court ordered the petitioner to appear before the appraiser and instructed respondents to consider an application for a bonded warehouse if made.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal of the petition allowed. Petitioner to appear before respondent No.3. Respondents to consider application for bonded warehouse.

M/S. Turakhia Ferromet Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITON NO.1077 OF 2007

¶4

 M/s.Turakhia Ferromet Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner.

¶5

 V/s.

¶6

 Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶7

 Mr.S.N.Kantawala i/b. Uday Warunjikar for petitioner.

¶8

 Mr.A.S. Rao for respondent.

¶9

 Mr.A.K.Pandey, Appraiser G-VII present.

¶10

CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND
 J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2007.
P.C. :-

¶12

 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
 and the respondents. After hearing the parties for
 some time, the learned counsel for the respondents on
 instructions from Mr.A.K.Pandey, Appraiser for
 respondent No.3 states that an appropriate assessment
 order will be passed within two weeks on the Bills of
 Entry filed by the petitioner. In view of the same,
 nothing further survives in the petition.

¶13

 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks
 leave to withdraw the petition. The petition is
 allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed as withdrawn.

¶14

 - = : 2 : = -

¶15

 3. The petitioner shall appear before the

¶16

 respondent No.3 tomorrow at 11.00 a.m. and Mr.A.K.

¶17

 Pandey, the appraiser, who is personally present in the
 Court, shall inform the respondent No.3 today itself
 that the petitioner will be appearing before the
 respondent No.3 tomorrow at 11.00 a.m.

¶18

 4. If the petitioner applies to the respondents
 for a bonded warehouse, the respondents shall consider
 the same and also pass an appropriate order.

¶19

(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)

¶20

 (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)

M/S. Turakhia Ferromet Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Turakhia Ferromet Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Messrs. Siddhant Chemicals and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

S.P.Fabricators Pvt.Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jindal Drugs Limited Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Ma Care Vs the Union of India and Orws.

Parekh Platinum Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Shri Vijay M. Bhansali Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.