Supreme Court Allows Withdrawal of Writ Petition in Civil Appeal Due to Respondents' Request. Court Permitted Withdrawal of Writ Petition No.52563 of 2006 Following Allahabad High Court's Judgment Without Commenting on Its Correctness.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose in the context of a civil appeal concerning the withdrawal of a writ petition. The appellant, the Executive Engineer of D.V.V. Nigam, contested against M/s. Real Cement Company Pvt. Ltd. and another respondent. The respondents requested permission to withdraw Writ Petition No.52563 of 2006, which had been disposed of by the Allahabad High Court. This request was made following a judgment by the Allahabad High Court on July 18, 2008, in Writ Petition No.989 (MB)/1999. The appellant's counsel did not object to this prayer. The Supreme Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The court did not express any opinion on the correctness of the Allahabad High Court's earlier order. The final decision was rendered on August 18, 2008, with a subsequent order correcting the civil appeal number on August 22, 2008.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Withdrawal of Writ Petition - Permission to Withdraw - Civil Appeal No.5087 of 2008 - Respondents sought permission to withdraw Writ Petition No.52563 of 2006 after a judgment by the Allahabad High Court. The court allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, without expressing any opinion on the correctness of the High Court's order. Held that the appeal was allowed and the impugned order set aside (Paras Not mentioned).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the respondents could withdraw the writ petition in light of the Allahabad High Court's judgment.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and dismissed Writ Petition No.52563 of 2006 as withdrawn.

Law Points

  • Withdrawal of writ petition
  • High Court orders
  • Civil appellate jurisdiction
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2008 LawText (SC) (08) 188

Civil Appeal No.5087 of 2008

2008-08-22

B.N. AGRAWAL, G.S. SINGHVI, J.M. PANCHAL

Dharam Bir Raj Vohra, Manik Karanjawala

Executive Engineer, D.V.V. Nigam

M/s. Real Cement Company Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal regarding the withdrawal of a writ petition.

Remedy Sought

Respondents sought permission to withdraw Writ Petition No.52563 of 2006.

Filing Reason

The respondents made the request following a judgment by the Allahabad High Court.

Previous Decisions

The Allahabad High Court had disposed of Writ Petition No.52563 of 2006.

Issues

Whether the respondents could withdraw the writ petition Impact of the Allahabad High Court's judgment on the withdrawal

Submissions/Arguments

Respondents requested permission to withdraw the writ petition Appellant had no objection to the withdrawal

Ratio Decidendi

The court upheld the respondents' right to withdraw the writ petition without commenting on the correctness of the prior High Court order.

Judgment Excerpts

The respondents may be permitted to withdraw Writ Petition No.52563 of 2006 The appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside

Procedural History

The case was heard in the Supreme Court following the Allahabad High Court's judgment and the respondents' request to withdraw the writ petition.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Declares Certain Provisions of Punjab Pre-emption Act Unconstitutional — Feudal Rights Invalidated. The right of pre-emption based on consanguinity is deemed a relic of feudalism and inconsistent with modern constitutional principles.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Discusses Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Damages in Motor Accident Compensation Case. Composite Negligence Recognized and Compensation Assessment Principles Clarified Under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.