Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Delhi · body

2025 DAILYLAW 43787 (DEL)

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS. v. MR SIDDHARTHA MUKHERJEE

W.P.(C)/13654/2023 · 2025-07-01

Prateek Jalan

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

W.P.(C) 13654/2023 p. 1 $~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13654/2023 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: None. versus MR SIDDHARTHA MUKHERJEE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kanishk Ahuja, Advocate. Mr. Abhay Kumar, Amicus Curiae. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 18.08.2025 REVIEW PET. 429/2025 1. The present review petition has been filed by the respondent in person, seeking review of the judgment dated 01.07.2025, by which the captioned writ petition was allowed. 2. Mr. Kanishk Ahuja, learned counsel for the respondent, has since been engaged through the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. He submits that the ground for review is that the writ petition was not filed by a duly authorised person. 3. In this regard, the writ petition was verified by the affidavit dated 13.10.2023 of Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, designated as Chief Regional Manager – LPG, Delhi LPG Regional Office of the petitioner – Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited [“Corporation”]. Along with the said writ petition, a Power of Attorney dated 26.05.2023, executed by This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/08/2025 at 12:34:02 W.P.(C) 13654/2023 p. 2 Mr. Amit Garg, Director (Marketing) of petitioner – Corporation, was also filed, authorising Mr. Kumar to file legal proceedings. With the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, it has also placed on record a Board Resolution dated 27.12.2022, authorising execution of a Power of Attorney [“POA”] by the company to Mr. Garg. The POA was executed on 02.01.2023, which included the authority to institute proceedings, and to delegate his power to other officers in the Marketing Division. In such circumstances, the only ground urged by Mr. Ahuja does not commend to me. 4. Upon perusal of the review petition, I do not also find any other ground to establish an error apparent on the face of the record, so as to warrant exercise of the limited review jurisdiction of the Court. 5. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 18, 2025 ‘Bhupi/sd’/ This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/08/2025 at 12:34:02