Disposed

Nestle India Ltd. v. State

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Aug 2014CWP/1076/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-bench order permitting petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file afresh within four weeks, clarifying that coercive state action including encashment of bank guarantee shall not be taken if a fresh petition is filed within the said period.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw the petition reserving liberty to file afresh within four weeks; State directed not to take coercive action if petition is filed within the period.

Nestle India Ltd. Vs State — Company and Corporate | Himachal Pradesh HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 1076 of 2012 Date of Decision: September 7, 2017

Nestle India Limited

…Petitioner.

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & others …Respondents. Coram:

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr.Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶9

For the Respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, with M/s Romesh Verma, Anup Rattan, Additional Advocate General & J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for the State.

¶10

Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (oral).

¶11

CMP No. 1958 of 2017

¶12

For the reasons so assigned in the application,

¶13

the same is allowed. Original CWP No.1076 of 2012, titled as Nestle India Limited vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, is revived to its original number and position and taken on Board.

¶14

CWP No. 1076 of 2012

¶15

Under instructions, learned counsel, for the

¶16

petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present

¶17

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶18

¶19

petition, reserving liberty to file afresh on the same and subsequent cause of action, detailing the factual matrix in the petition. Learned counsel states that needful shall positively be done, if so required and desired, within a period of four weeks from today. Permission granted.

¶20

It is clarified that if petitions are filed within the said period, respondents shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner, including encashment of the bank guarantee. However, if no petition is filed within the aforesaid period, it shall be open for the State to take appropriate action, in accordance with law.

¶21

Copy of this order be also placed on the record of CWP No.1076 of 2012, titled as Nestle India Limited vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others.

¶22

In view of the above, present petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.

¶23

(Sanjay Karol), Acting Chief Justice.

¶24

September 7, 2017

¶25

(Purohit)

¶26

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge.

Nestle India Ltd. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nestle India Ltd. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Indian Technomac Company Ltd. Vs State of Hp

Ms Himachal Futuristic Communication Vs State

Ms Himachal Futuristic Communication Vs State

Ku. Reena Vs Himachal Pradesh School Education Board

Rakesh Kalia Vs State of Hp

Ms C C Construction Ltd. Vs State