The High Court disposed of the writ petition relying on a statement provided by the respondent.
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
CWP No.14537 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision.29.09.2014
Dr. Parikshit Bansal
......Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Department of Pharmaceuticals and others
......Respondents
Present: Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for respondent No.6.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)
could be present in their office on 30.09.2014 during office hours and they will proceed further on the basis of information given by the petitioner.
by respondent No.6. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court if any further action is necessary.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE
September 29, 2014 Pankaj*
PANKAJ KUMAR 2014.10.01 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Dr. Parikshit Bansal
Union of India Department of Pharmaceuticals
other
K. Kannan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
