Respondents raised a forum non conveniens objection favoring the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Relying on a prior decision, respondents agreed to a six-week extension for filing there. The petitioners sought withdrawal with liberty to approach the other court.
Withdrawal of the writ petition and accompanying application.
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.
4
$~
ANAND MINING CORPORATION AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Harsh Pathak, Advocate with Mr. Mohit Choubey and Mr. Siddhartha Shukla, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate for UOI. Mr. Abhimjany singh, Advocate for respondent No.6.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
O R D E R % 10.02.2016
Learned counsel for respondent has raised preliminary objection of forum non-conveniences. It is contended that although this Court has jurisdiction, it would be more appropriate for the petition to be filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Learned counsel has further referred to the decision of this Court delivered on 26th November, 2013 in LPA 801/2012 titled as Chinteshwar Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Learned counsel for petitioners expressed an apprehension that the writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court may be objected to on the ground of limitation.
Learned counsel for respondents state that no such objection on the ground of limitation shall be taken if the petitioners approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court by way of a writ petition within a period of six weeks from today.
In view of this submission, learned counsel for petitioners seeks to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
With the aforesaid liberty, present writ petition and application are dismissed as withdrawn.
MANMOHAN, J
FEBRUARY 10, 2016 js
1 issue framed by the court
Whether forum non conveniens objection should be accepted to transfer the writ petition to the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chinteshwar Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.Referred¶10
LPA 801/2012 titled as Chinteshwar Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Anand Mining Corporation and anr.
Union of India and ors.
Manmohan
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
