Petitioner sought leave to withdraw its writ petition, stating the cause for prosecuting it no longer survived. The High Court disposed of the petition as withdrawn.
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.
48-WP-890-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 890 OF 2024
Asset Reconstruction Co. India Limited ...Petitioner Versus Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Private Limited ...Respondent
AMOL DILIPRAO NAWALE
Digitally signed byAMOL DILIPRAO NAWALE Date: 2024.06.25 13:40:51 +0530
Mr. Sidharth Samantaray i/b. Mr. T. N. Tripathi & Co., Advocate for the Petitioners.
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR &
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ
DATE : 24th JUNE 2024.
P.C. :
the cause for prosecuting the writ petition now does not survive. He seeks
leave to withdraw the writ petition.
[RAJESH S. PATIL, J] [A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]
1/1
ADN
Asset Reconstruction Co. India Limited
Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Private Limited
A.S. Chandurkar
Rajesh S. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
8 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
