Petitioners sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to claim other legal remedies available. The Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn along with pending applications.
Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn along with pending applications.
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
versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC for respondent No.1 Mr. Rajiv R. Raj, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3 Ms. Sunidhi Mittal, Advocate for IDIB Bank Ltd.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR O R D E R % 03.01.2018
Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, states that the petitioners want to withdraw the present writ petition, with liberty to take recourse to legal remedy which is available under the law.
In view of the statement made, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to as prayed. The pending applications are also dismissed as withdrawn.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J
JANUARY 03, 2018/tp
M/s Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. & Anr
Union of India & Ors
Sanjiv Khanna
Chander Shekhar
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
