Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 58758 (CHH)

M/s Jaika Automobiles Private Limited v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

WPC/620/2016 · 2025-11-16

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:55975 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 620 of 2016 1 - M/s Jaika Automobiles Private Limited Plot No. 84, Industrial Area, Bhilai District Durg Through Rohit Kale S/o Satish Kale, Aged About 42 Years, Director, Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., R/o 5th Dungaji Colony, Behind Anupam Garden, G.E. Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh, And P.S. Azad Chowk, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Power Of Attorney Holder And Authorized Signatory J.M. Patnaik S/o Late R.M. Patnaik, Aged About 55 Years, M/s. Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. G.E. Road, Tatibandh, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Commerce And Industries Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner And Appellate Authority, Directorate Of Industries, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief General Manager, District Trade And Industries Centre, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 17/11/2025 1. The SPC issued to the petitioner, pursuant to the order dated 25.04.2025, has been served upon him. VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.19 11:30:36 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, he has no instruction in the matter from the petitioner. 3. Since, learned counsel for the petitioner has no instruction in the matter and no other representation has been made on their behalf, the present petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved