The court held that since the parties had settled the dispute, the petition became infructuous and was dismissed as withdrawn.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.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CP No. 62 of 2012. [O&M] Date of Decision: 13th December, 2012.
M/s Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner through Mr. Divya Sarup, Advocate for Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate.
Versus
M/s Modern Industries Ltd. Respondent.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL]
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the parties
have settled the dispute rendering this petition as infructuous.
As prayed for, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
December 13, 2012. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE
dinesh
M/s Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd.
M/s Modern Industries Ltd.
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
