The petitioner approached the High Court with a company petition. The matter involved consent terms signed by representatives of both parties and their respective counsels.
The company petition was disposed of in terms of the consent terms.
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.
908.cp.85.13.doc
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY PETITION NO. 85 OF 2013
M/s. Ravi Steel Industries through
Mr. Deepak Agarwal (Partner)....Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Likeproof India Private Limited.....Respondents
____________
Mr. G. B. Kedia for the Petitioners.
Mr. N. S. Fadia i/b M/s. RMP Legal for the Respondents.
CORAM: G. S. PATEL, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 7, 2014.
P.C.:
1. The matter has been settled between the petitioner and the respondent-Company. Consent terms are filed. These have been signed by a partner of the petitioner and a director of the respondent, and by Mr. Kedia, learned Advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Fadia, learned counsel for the respondent-Company.
2. Mr. Fadia has recently been engaged by the respondents. He undertakes to file vakalatnama on or before 14th February 2014.
3. Consent terms are taken on record and marked 'X' for
1 of 2
908.cp.85.13.doc
identification.
4. The company petition is disposed of in terms of the consent terms.
(G. S. PATEL, J.)
2 of 2
M/s. Ravi Steel Industries
M/s. Likeproof India Private Limited
G. S. PATEL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court