Petition was allowed to be withdrawn as petitioner No.1 was closed and petitioner No.2 no longer existed. Rule discharged without costs.
Petition allowed to be withdrawn; rule discharged with no order as to costs.
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.
204-O.S-W.P-1394-1994
1
Shailaja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1394 OF 1994
M/s. Adverts Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ] Petitioners Vs. Mr. M. Guruswamy & Ors. ] Respondents
Ms. Lata Desai, for petitioner. Ms. S.V. Bharucha, for respondents No.1 to 3.
CORAM : R.G. KETKAR, J.
DATE : 6th JULY, 2017.
P.C .
Heard Ms. Desai, leaned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Bharucha, learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3.
[R.G. KETKAR, J.]
M/s. Adverts Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Mr. M. Guruswamy & Ors.
R.G. KETKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
