Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 30485 (JHR)

JAMSHEDPUR PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR ANKIT GOYAL v. ARUN RAISURANA

C.M.P./217/2025 · 2025-07-29

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:20851 --1-- C.M.P. No. 217 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI C.M.P. No. 217 of 2025 ---- Jamshedpur Property Developers Private Limited, a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Punwani Chambers, 1st Floor, 7B, Kiron Shankar Ray Road, PO – GPO Kolkata, PS – Regent Park, Kolkata – 700001 and Corporate Office at M – 9, 15 and 16, Phase – VI, Tata Kandra Main Road, Bico More, PO and PS – Gamharia, District – Seraikella Kharsawan through its director Ankit Goyal, son of Dilip Kumar Goyal, aged about 36 years, resident of 2 CH Area (East), Road No.8, PO and PS – Bistupur, Town – Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum .... Petitioner -- Versus -- 1. Arun Raisurana, son of Late Nirmal Chandra Raisurana, resident of 4, Inner Circle Road, Bistupur, PO and PS – Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum 2. Reeta Kuhad, wife of Paras Kuhad, and daughter of Late Nirmal Chandra Raisurana, resident of 307, 309, 3rd Floor, Ganpati Plaza, M.I. Road, Jaipur - 302001 3. Tata Steel Limited, a company duly incorporated through its Managing Director, under the Companies Act, 1956, havingits works in Jamshedpur, PO and PS – Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District – Singhbhum East .... Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Ms. Ayushi, Advocate For O.P. Nos.1 and 3 :- Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate :- Mr. Anish Kamal, Advocate ---- 05/29.07.2025 I.A. No.9662 of 2025 has been filed for withdrawal of C.M.P. No.217 of 2025. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by way of referring to paragraph No.4 of the said I.A. submits that the 2025:JHHC:20851 --2-- C.M.P. No. 217 of 2025 petitioner wants to pursue the remedy of review petition before the learned trial court and in view of that she seeks permission to withdraw this C.M.P. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1 and 3 submits that opposite party No.1 has left for his heavenly abode, however, vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No.3 is still surviving. 4. For the reasons assigned in the I.A., the prayer made in the I.A. is allowed and disposed of. 5. Consequently, C.M.P. No.217 of 2025 is dismissed as withdrawn. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Sangam/