Petitioner filed a writ petition under Art. 226 challenging an order by the respondent. Subsequently, parties reached a mutual settlement and submitted a written proposal.
The WPO stands disposed of in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties without any 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.
OD-11
ORDER SHEET
WPO/185/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE
RANJIT KUMAR PAUL AND ORS. VS HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA Date : August 16, 2022.
Appearance: Mr. Partha Sarathy Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Rajib Mullick, Adv. Ms. Shreyashi Maity, Adv. …for the petitioner
Mr. Prasun Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Deepak Agarwal, Adv. …for HPCL
The Court: Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that parties have mutually agreed to a resolution in the matter and hands up a proposal, given in writing in that regard by the petitioner, which has also been accepted by the respondent. Let the same be kept on record.
Accordingly, WPO/185/2019 stands disposed of in light of the settlement arrived at between the parties without any order as to costs.
(SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
R.Bhar
Ranjit Kumar Paul and Ors
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and Ors
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
