← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/213/2015withdrawn

M/S Gordhandas Gobindram v. The Chief Engineer C North Central Railway And ORS.

2015-02-13Hon'Ble The Acting Chief Justice,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGHCQUR'ILOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) JSIS W.P.(Q NoN'

/2.015 uje &) ^ts//^- -M/s Gordhandas Gobindram PETITIONER:

Head Office:

52 Jairam Complex, \r~ Raipur (C.G.), Through its partner Shri Jaiiaj Jadwani, S/o Shri Goverdhandas Jadwani, Aged about years, R/o Ahmad ji Colony Raipur (C.G.), Police Sation- City y o j aa g^.j.i j ca Kotwali, Post OfficeMain Post s "--''

f"~i .^/ .. y / Office, Raipur (C.G.)

VERSUS

.1.

The Chief Engmeer (C) North RESPONDENTS:

Central Railway, 6th floor, NA BuUding, DN Road Mumbai CST 400001 2.

The Deputy Chief Engineer (C) Centa-al Railway Wardha (Maharashtra) 3.

The Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), Central Railway, 6fc floor, NA Building, DN Road ^ Mumbai CST 400001 PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCT ^F AFPROPRIATE WRITS OF -- ^To A MUS^AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE

'5^.

S' & „- ?!

? t6ESSrP\ il ^8s!-^\ y 'r ti.

HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR D.B.:

HON'BLE SHRI NAVIN SINHA. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA.A WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 213 OF 2015 PETITIONER M/s. Gordhandas Gobindram

Versus

The Chief Engineer (C) Nori:h Central Railway and Others RESPONDENTS (WRIT PETITION UN0ERARTICLE 226 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA) Appearancei Mr. Saurabh Jain, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Advocate for the Respondents.

O R D E R

(13thofFebruary, 2015) PER NAVIN SINHA. ACTING CJ.

1.

After some arguments, and the objection raised on behalf of the Respondents with regard to maintainability for lack of territorial jurisdiction, ileave is sought to withdraw the petition for presentation before the appropriate Court having territorial jurisdiction in the matter. 2.

Needless to say that it shall be for the competent Court to consider matters in accordance with law.

3.

The petition is dismissed for non-maintainability on grounds for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Sd/- Actingchiefjustice sd/'/- Prashant Kumar Judge Anu