← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/2198/2024disposed off

M/S Priya Electronics A Proprietary Concern Of Shri Hitenkumar Premchand Rangalani v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Government Pleader And Others

2024-03-13Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge,Hon'Ble Shri Justice R. M. Joshi3 pages

2024:BHC-AUG:5842-DB *1*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 911 WRIT PETITION NO. 2161 OF 2024 M/S PRIYA ELECTRONICS A PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF SHRI HITENKUMAR PREMCHAND RANGALANI

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER AND OTHERS ...

AND 913 WRIT PETITION NO. 2185 OF 2024 M/S PRIYA ELECTRONICS A PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF SHRI HITENKUMAR PREMCHAND RANGALANI

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER AND OTHERS ...

AND 914 WRIT PETITION NO. 2197 OF 2024 M/S PRIYA ELECTRONICS A PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF SHRI HITENKUMAR PREMCHAND RANGALANI

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER AND OTHERS ...

AND 915 WRIT PETITION NO. 2198 OF 2024 M/S PRIYA ELECTRONICS A PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF SHRI HITENKUMAR PREMCHAND RANGALANI

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER AND OTHERS ...

*2* Shri Rahul C. Thakur i/by Shri Lalitkumar B. Palod, Advocates for the Petitioners.

Shri S.K. Tambe, AGP for Respondents 1 to 3/State. ...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & R.M. JOSHI, JJ.

DATE :- 13th March, 2024 Per Court :- 1.

These matters were heard for sometime on 27.02.2024 and were adjourned to enable the learned Advocate for the Petitioners to take instructions.

2.

Today, the learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners desire to avail of the statutory remedy as is prescribed under the statute and they desire to withdraw these petitions.

3.

In these circumstances, these Writ Petitions are disposed off as withdrawn.

4.

Needless to state, the statutory remedy is available to the Petitioners.

5.

Since these Writ Petitions have been filed within limitation, the Petitioners, to the extent of the delay in filing the statutory appeals, are protected by the view taken by the

*3* Honourable Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, (2020) 19 SCC 681.

kps ( R.M. JOSHI, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )