Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PATODIA SYNTEX LTD,MUMBAI versus GENERAL MNGR,DIST.INDUSTRIES CENTRE,PKD

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PATODIA SYNTEX LTD,MUMBAI v. GENERAL MNGR,DIST.INDUSTRIES CENTRE,PKD - OP No. 8235 of 1998(E) [2007] RD-KL 10778 (20 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 8235 of 1998(E)

1. PATODIA SYNTEX LTD,MUMBAI
... Petitioner

Vs

1. GENERAL MNGR,DIST.INDUSTRIES CENTRE,PKD
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.ANTONY DOMINIC

For Respondent :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

Dated :20/06/2007

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH J. O.P. Nos.8235/98 & 21474/2000 Dated 20th June, 2007.

J U D G M E N T

Petitioners in these cases approached this Court with certain grievances regarding, resumption of the industrial plot allotted to them as far as the petitioner in the former writ petition and the valuation of the improvements as far as the petitioner in the latter writ petition. Though the petitioner in the former writ petition has taken several contentions with regard to the resumption, in view of the intervening developments, it is fairly submitted that the relief that is pressed at this point of time is only their claim for costs of land, improvements etc., with interest. As far as the petitioner in O.P.21474/2000 is concerned, the grievance is with regard to the valuation as adopted in Ext.P14 by the first respondent. Learned Government Pleader submits that since the proceedings are at the instance of the District Industries OP NOs. 8235/98 & 21474/2000 2 Centre, going by the guidelines governing the assessment, valuation etc., the petitioners have a remedy before the Director of Industries. Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of as follows :- Petitioners in both writ petitions may file an appropriate representation before the Director of Industries, with regard to their surviving grievances within two months from today. The Director shall consider the matter with notice to the petitioners and other affected/interested parties, and take appropriate action in accordance with law, within another four months. The interim order passed by this Court in C.M.P.No.36074/2000 in O.P.No.21474/2000 will continue till such time.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.

tgs

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

O.P. Nos.8235/98 & 21474/2000

J U D G M E N T

Dated 20th June, 2007.


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.