Petitioners sought liberty to withdraw the writ petition after the Recovery Officer cancelled the scheduled auction. The High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn in an order recorded on January 15, 2019.
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.
$~3
AGGARWAL ENTERPRISES & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Ms. Bidya Rani, Mr. Atul Tripathi & Mr. Paresh S.N. Sharma, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Chetan Bhalla, Adv.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
O R D E R % 15.01.2019
After some hearing, in view of the subsequent developments that the Recovery Officer cancelled the scheduled auction, learned counsel for the petitioner sought liberty to withdraw the writ petition.
The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
PRATEEK JALAN, J
JANUARY 15, 2019 ‘pv’
AGGARWAL ENTERPRISES & ORS.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
S. Ravindra Bhat
Prateek Jalan
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
