The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the continuing petition on the ground that the respondent had complied with the orders. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn on January 21, 2019.
permission to withdraw the petition granted; petition dismissed as withdrawn.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.
$~27
RAVI CHANDER RAJAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. V.Subramanian, Advocate for Mr.S.M. Vivekanand, Advocate.
versus
ANKUR GARG & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Akshay Makhija, CGSC with Ms.Seerat Deep Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
O R D E R % 21.01.2019
Mr. V.Subramanian, Advocate, on instructions of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.S.M. Vivekanand, seeks permission to withdraw the petition since compliance has been done by the respondent.
As such, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
VINOD GOEL, J.
JANUARY 21, 2019
“shailendra”
RAVI CHANDER RAJAN
ANKUR GARG & ANR
VINOD GOEL
As recorded by the court registry
Proceedings for wilful disobedience of a court order under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
