High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 08 GUJ CK 0045

Tulip Mega Mart Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India and Others

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 21 August 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.M. Thaker, J
CASE NUMBER
Special Civil Application No. 3531 of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 331 words

Honourable Mr. Justice K.M. Thaker

1.

In present petition, the petitioner has prayed for below mentioned reliefs:-

7(b) To declare that the petitioner company does not fall within the purview of provisions of section 2 of the Price Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and the business carried out by the petitioner company is within the four corners of law and no coercive action whatsoever shall be initiated by respondents or at the behest of any business competitors intending to destroy or damage the petitioner as a result of competition;

(c) To restrain the respondents and/or their agents and/or their servants from initiating any action against the petitioner company without affording an opportunity of being heard and justifying its stand that the same is not covered within the purview of section 2 of the Price Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978;

While making the submissions in support of the reliefs prayed for in present petition, Mr. Upadhayaya, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that in connection with the application filed against the petitioner, the petitioner has taken out separate petition being Special Criminal Application No. 2437 of 201 2, which is likely to come up for hearing before the appropriate Court within short time and that therefore, the petitioner does not press this petition at this stage in view of the fact that the petitioner has taken out separate petition in connection with the application filed against the petitioner.

2.

Mr. Upadhayaya, learned advocate for the petitioner, also submitted that the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw present petition at this stage without prejudice to the contentions raised by the petitioner in the said other writ petition. The permission, as sought for, is granted. Present petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.

It is, however, clarified that the petitioner has withdrawn present petition without prejudice to the contentions raised in the writ petition being Special Criminal Application No. 2437 of 201 2.

The petition accordingly stands disposed of.t