Writ petitioner sought withdrawal of a petition for employment absorption in HUDCO after the matter was amicably settled. The High Court allowed the withdrawal application and dismissed the writ petition and associated applications as withdrawn.
Application under Section 151 CPC allowed; Writ Petition and associated applications dismissed as withdrawn.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.
$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJESH PATEL & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Garud M.V., Advocate along with Mr. Rajesh Kumar Patel, Petitioner No.1 in person
versus
UOI &ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Kamal Kant Jha, Advocate for R- 1. Mr. Sonal Kumar Singh, Advocate for R-2. Mr. Abhishek Goyal, Advocate for R- 3.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P.VAISH
O R D E R % 08.03.2016
C.M. Appl. No.8572/2016
This is an application under Section 151 CPC seeking withdrawal of the present petition.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P. (C) No.4663/2003 with C.M. Appl. Nos. 8072/2003, 9094/2003 & 12546/2003
This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India, inter alia , seeking directions to respondents and particularly respondent No.2 to treat the petitioners as employees of HUDCO and absorb the petitioners in equivalent position in HUDCO.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an amicable settlement has reached between the parties and respondent No.3 has made payment to the petitioners in terms of the settlement. He further submits that in view of the settlement he seeks permission to withdraw the present petition as well as applications.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Patel, petitioner No.1 who is present in Court submits that petitioner Nos.2 to 10 have executed a General Power of Attorney dated 04.03.2016 in his favour. He confirms that respondent No.3 has settled the matter with the petitioners. He further confirms that in terms of the settlement he has received the settled amount on behalf of all the petitioners.
Statement of petitioner No.1 in this regard has been recorded separately.
In view of the aforesaid observations and C.M.Appl.No.8572/2016, the petition as well as applications are dismissed as withdrawn.
V.P.VAISH, J
MARCH 08, 2016 hs
Statement of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Patel, S/o. Mr. Shankar Lal Patel, aged about 53 years, R/o. Flat No.2, Prerna Apartment, IGNOU Road, New Delhi
ON S.A.
I am petitioner No.1 and have been authorised by the petitioner Nos.2 to 10 by virtue of General Power of Attorney dated 04.03.2016 which is marked as ‘A’.
I along with the other petitioners have settled the matter with respondent No.3 and the respondent No.3 has paid the amount in terms of full and final settlement. The petitioner does not want to pursue the present petition.
(VED PRAKASH VAISH) JUDGE
RO & AC 08.03.2016
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajesh Patel & Ors.
Union of India & Ors.
V.P. Vaish
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
