The Court disposed of a writ petition filed against an illegal demand. It directed the petitioner to pursue the remedy under clause-32 of the Franchiseeship Agreement before the appropriate authority and vacated an interim order.
Petition disposed of permitting remedy under clause-32 of agreement; interim order vacated.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 5532 of 2012
M/s Shivam Electronics
….. Petitioner
Mr. A.K. Biswal, Adv.
Vs.
General Manager (SSA) BSNL & Anr.
….. Opposite Parties
Mr. P.R. Barik, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMAN
ORDER
10.04.2023
Page 1 of 2
Ashok
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner must proceed under the alternative remedy provided in the agreement before approaching the court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Shivam Electronics
General Manager (SSA) BSNL & Anr.
B.R. Sarangi
M.S. Raman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
