Writ petition in termination dispute dismissed by this court as not pressed by the petitioner after respondent kept the termination notice in abeyance, with liberty to approach the court.
Leave to withdraw the petition was granted, and the writ petition was dismissed as not pressed.
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.
$~24
ESSAR POWER MP LTD. ..... Petitioner Through : Mr Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate and Mr Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate with Mr Rishi Agrawala and Mr Karan Luthra, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through : Ms Shiva Laksmi and Mr Ruchir Ranjan Rai, Advocates for R-1 & 2.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA O R D E R % 06.10.2016 CM Nos.37730-31/2016(both applications for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 9427/2016 & CM No.37729/2016(interim relief)
The petitioner impugns order/notice of termination dated 15.09.2016. It is contended that a representation was given to the respondent. Pursuant to the representation, respondent had sought clarification from the State of Jharkhand.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that in view of the response received from the State of Jharkhand, the competent authority has decided to keep the notice of termination dated 15.09.2016 (impugned herein) in abeyance for a period of two months from 05.10.2016 to enable the State Government to take an appropriate decision in this matter.
WP(C) 9427/2016
Page 1
It is contended that the ICICI Bank Limited, which had furnished the bank guarantee, has been requested to keep the notice of invocation and demand of appropriation of bank guarantees raised therein in abeyance for two months. Copy of the letter dated 05.10.2016 has been produced. The same is taken on record.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the response received from the State of Jharkhand and the decision of the respondent in keeping the impugned order dated 15.09.2016 in abeyance, the petitioner does not wish to press this petition, at this stage. He prays for , leave to withdraw the same with liberty to approach the Court in case need so arises.
In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed reserving liberty of the petitioner, as prayed for.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
OCTOBER 06, 2016 ‘sn’
WP(C) 9427/2016
Page 2
Essar Power MP Ltd.
Union of India
Sanjeev Sachdeva
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
