Petitioners withdrew the writ petition to avail alternative remedies. The petition was disposed of as withdrawn and the miscellaneous application as infructuous.
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.
$~6
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that alternative remedy, as may be available under law, would be availed by the petitioners. He further submits that petitioner had made a representation with the respondents but the same has yet not been decided. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the representation has already been rejected in the meeting in which petitioner was also present. Petitioner has denied this fact. He submits that he was not present in any such meeting.
This court has not to consider this question in this writ petition, which petitioners are withdrawing to avail alternative remedies.
Petition is disposed of as withdrawn. Miscellaneous application is disposed of as infructuous. Dasti.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
APRIL 17, 2017/ dk
Hind Industries Limited & Ors
Indian Bank & Anr
A.K. Pathak
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
