The Writ Petition was dismissed as rendered infructuous due to an out-of-court settlement between the parties, which was undisputed.
The writ petition was dismissed as rendered infructuous.
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.
WPMS No. 1992 of 2016 Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sarvesh Agarwal, Advocate for the respondent.
A statement has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per the instructions, which he has received from his client, the parties have entered into a settlement outside the Court. This fact is not disputed by the respondent’s counsel.
Consequently, in view of the settlement which has been arrived at between the parties, this writ petition has rendered infructuous and accordingly, the same is dismissed as having rendered infructuous.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 10.07.2019
Mahinder/
Sharad Kumar Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
