The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that it was withdrawn by the counsel for the petitioner. No substantive legal issues or propositions were addressed as the matter was disposed of by the withdrawal.
Liberty to withdraw granted; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn.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.
$~28
OCTAVIUS TEA AND INDUSTRIES LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Pinaki Addy with Ms. Sharda Garg, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh with Mr. Saeed Qadri, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
Mr. Addy, learned counsel for the petitioner, after some hearing seeks liberty to withdraw the writ petition and approach the concerned High Court having territorial jurisdiction.
Liberty granted. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J
FEBRUARY 09, 2018/P
Octavius Tea and Industries Ltd.
Union of India
S. Ravindra Bhat
A. K. Chawla
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
