Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ASHOK KUMAR & ORS versus FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ashok Kumar & Ors v. Food Corporation of India & Ors - CWP-6798-1999 [2006] RD-P&H 1331 (2 March 2006)

C.M. No. 11490 of 2003 and

C.W.P. No. 6798 of 1999 (O&M) [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.M. No. 11490 of 2003 and

C.W.P. No. 6798 of 1999 (O&M)

Date of Decision: March 7, 2006

Ashok Kumar and others

.....Appellants

Vs.

Food Corporation of India and others

.....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- None for the petitioners.

Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma, Advocate

for the applicant- respondents.

-.-

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

Notice of the present application was issued to the learned counsel for the non-applicant/ petitioners vide order dated May 29, 2003.

Record of the case shows that no one had put in appearance on behalf of the petitioners on various dates, thereafter.

I have heard Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant- respondents.

Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant- respondents has produced before me a judgment dated August 22, 2002 passed in C.M. No. 11490 of 2003 and

C.W.P. No. 6798 of 1999 (O&M) [2]

C.W.P. No. 17925 of 2000 (The Food Corporation of India Security Guard Employees Union Vs. Food Corporation of India and others). According to the learned counsel, the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the judgment in C.W.P. No. 17925 of 2000, I find that the controversy involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.

Consequently, the present writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the judgment dated August 22, 2002 passed in C.W.P. No. 17925 of 2000 (The Food Corporation of India Security Guard Employees Union Vs. Food Corporation of India and others).

However, since no one has put in appearance on behalf of the non- applicant/ petitioners , therefore, liberty is granted to them to get the writ petition revived, if the controversy is not so covered.

C.M. as well as the main petition stand disposed of.

March 7, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)

sanjay JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.