Writ petition by a company against Union of India and others; counsel sought withdrawal with instructions, and the court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, disposing of pending applications.
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.
225
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-4547-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.07.2024
M/S AAR A AR TECHNOPLAST PVT LT D FARIDABAD
. . . . Petitio n er
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
. . . . Respondents
**_****_ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH ******
Present Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocat e for the petitioner.
Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Sr. Stand i ng Counsel for the respondents/Revenue.
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE
(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE
July 25, 2024
Mohit goyal
1. Wh e ther speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Wh e ther reportable? Yes/No
MOHIT GOYAL 2024.07.26 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
M/S Aar Aar Technoplast Pvt Ltd Faridabad
Union of India
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Sanjay Vashisth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
