Petitioner sought withdrawal of writ petition after respondent counsel stated that the restraint notice under MRTP Act would be limited to the specified structure.
Leave to withdraw the petition granted.
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.
6 wp 11789-16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11789 OF 2016
Jitendra Madan Shinde .. Petitioner v/s.
CIDCO ..Respondent
Mr. Sandeep Mishra for the Petitioner. Mr. B.B.Sharma for CIDCO.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE &
SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.
DATED : 16 AUGUST, 2018.
P.C. :
makes a statement that the impugned notice under Section 54(1) of
MRTP Act will be restricted to the structure mentioned therein. Statement accepted.
Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)
Digitally signed by Prasanna Prasanna Pradeep Pradeep Salgaonkar Salgaonkar Date:2018.08.21 11:42:25 +0530
1 of 1
salgaonkar
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jitendra Madan Shinde
CIDCO
RANJIT MORE
ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
