High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Heinz India Pvt Ltd v. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority & Others - WRIT - C No. 68467 of 2005  RD-AH 335 (5 January 2006)
Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.
It was submitted by Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel who appeared for the petitioner that in Writ Petition No. 26671 of 2002 the Division Bench had restrained the respondents from recovering the amounts in respect of item no.4 for the Trade Marks owned by Glaxo at Bombay, for Item No.5 for the acquisition of the residful undertaking and for Item No.6 for not competing in the same business until the disposal by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority of the appeal against the order dated 17.5.2002, which is Appeal No. 20 of 2002. The other appeal filed by the petitioner the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is Appeal No. 84 of 2002, which is against the order-dated 6.9.2002. The submission of Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal is that only one appeal has been decided by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority i.e. Appeal No. 84 of 2002 filed against the order dated 6.9.2002 and not the other Appeal No.20 of 2002 filed against the order dated 17.5.2002 and, therefore, the direction of the Division Bench restraining the recovery in respect of the aforesaid three items is still operative and the interim order passed by me requires modification.
Learned Standing counsel sought time to examine this aspect of the matter.
Put up on 10.1.2006.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.