Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2017 DAILYLAW 2945 (BOM)

VIDARBHA PRADESH AUDYOGIK KAMGAR SANGHATANA, THROUGH ITS VICE PRESIDENT v. PIX TRANSMISSION LIMITED, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/ GENERAL MANAGER AND ANOTHER

WP/125/2017 · 2026-02-27

Nivedita Prakash Mehta, Shri Anil L Pansare

body2017

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 wp 125.17.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.125/2017 (Vidrbha Pradesh Audyogik Kamgar Sanghatana, Nagpur V Pix Transmission Ltd, Nagpur and another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - None for the petitioner. Mr D.M. Kakani, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mrs. R.V. Sharma, AGP for respondent no.2. CORAM : Anil L. Pansare and Nivedita P. Mehta, JJ. DATE : 27-02-2026. On the previous date, none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner and, therefore, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption “for dismissal.” 2. Today, when the matter is called out, again none appears for the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. 3. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution. (Judge , J. ) (Judge , J. ) Deshmukh