Petitioner sought to withdraw an admitted Company Petition due to a Supplemental Agreement. No third-party claims were received, and the Court allowed the withdrawal.
The Company Petition was allowed to be withdrawn and was disposed of accordingly.
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.
cp 128 of 2014 (916).sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY PETITION NO.128 OF 2014
Rewas Ports Ltd … Petitioner versus Tiger Warehousing Cold Chain Pvt. Ltd. … Respondent
Mr. Pramod N. Patil, for Petitioner.
Mr. Ritesh Jain i/by M/s. Purnanand and Co., for Respondent.
CORAM: S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.
DATE: 22nd APRIL, 2015
P.C .
and no claims have been received pursuant to the said advertisements, no direction are issued to once again issue advertisements inviting claims from
1/2
ssp
cp 128 of 2014 (916).sxw
the workers/creditors, if any. The Petitioner is allowed to withdraw the
above Company Petition and the Company Petition is disposed of a such.
( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )
2/2
ssp
Rewas Ports Ltd
Tiger Warehousing Cold Chain Pvt. Ltd.
S.J. Kathawalla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
