The single-judge High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the appeal withdrawn by the appellant on 11-11-2014 without costs.
The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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.
l? @ ^] l: :1' 'l
-^1.^!.
mm
^
IN THE HIQH CQ^RT @P J^BICAT^REa AT JABAI»E®R
^RSTi APPEM, »© . rr) ^p ^§t
lltl1
APPEL&AHT
©EPENDAE3T No»l Tata E^iaeeri^ & Iae@@s^tlve^^^^^^^
A C©m|>aayiBcorporat&d mitder tfae J |
lB<aia@ Comp.aaies Aet,llt3 & its jj i
re|id^oftice at Boribay Ho^se^c^i M@&1|
Street^ F@rt Bonak>aya23^T@wii^Tab^& ^ |
Distriet BoBifeay (%s) 11
VERSEFS
RESPONBENTS
PLAINTIFP 1« M/s» B^S <,Pr^ebaHdanJL»a firm^ialy II
regd.eiader Partnership A@fc»1932»
Prlaeipal plaee of B^siBess at 1
.^ &aTi@ra®& Bra^eii WM/s^ ©iialifcyCei ii% III[111
PiE>es at 12^ ZiKaiastrial Estate^Stalgiiur
Clty-^c Bist,Ratpur»MP ^
^': 2< M/ s^ Bhilal Motors^aPartBer abt^ f4x»| lli
8egd«larader I>artQersfaip Aet • 19^2 aad
baving its Pri^eipal place ©f
tetasisae ss at Tatibaad.^ai.par, City»
Tah •& ®ist»aatpar ,MP • li II
3» Sri S^bbash <ralia S/@»i,,at,e PS 3'adA
35 yrs t^artaer ia M/ s»BMi-ai M©tors»
^
a/©tatiteaQd»RalparCi.ty»Tate« &
©ist»RaiptarJCP
4^ M/s. P»S.^"aiil Met^rs (PttBjab)Ltd.
C@mpaay Ii|c©rporat:edMBder Igidian
Companles Aest^ 1956(a gartner in the 1
flrm ©£M/sBfailai Motprsy , @ffl.ee ^fe|
7-A,Rajpar R@ad,©elfel»T©w|i& fala«
r l aad Bist»®elfai
5.
F s» P • S ^^ala ^aa<a ai»€B^ildj.^t P^A fl
£»td^Acom^ay <auiy incorg©rated^^de^ i
laALaa C@«Aet»1956, (a gartaer Aa 1;1»||
fiTBtt of M/a»BMlai ^©t©rs)Re9d,©f£i©i|
at 7-A Raj^ar R©a<a»©e3.M< -
API'EMi i?KE>ER SECTIOM_96 REAB WITH @R©EK41 R^fcE 1 QF T^ CI>»C, :i
YrT.^Tft« Tr^TTT-s: ^3^AA
r;
^
HIGHCOURTO^CHHATTISGARH.BILASPUR
SB:HO BLESHMJUSTICE^<>^.B^
FIRST APPEAL No. 151/1999^
Appellant Tafa Ehgineermg and Locomptiv^C^
Versus
Respondents M/s B.S. Premchandani and others
AD-aearance:
Shri Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellant. Ssmt. Anju Ahuja, Adv. for respondent No. 1
1
None appears for the other respondents.
ORDER
(11-11-2014)
.^,.
Sd/C.B.Bajpai Judge
^
Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company
M/s B.S. Premchandani and others
C.B. Bajpai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
