Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 6906 (HP)

M/S ADITYA INDUSTRIES v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

CWP/2396/2025 · 2025-02-20

Ranjan Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:HHC:3052 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No:2396 of 2025 Decided On : 20th February, 2025 __________________________________________________________ M/S Aditya Industries ...Petitioner Versus Union of India & ors. ...Respondents Coram HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN SHARMA, VACATION JUDGE 1 Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India with Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 3. Mr. Dilip K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.2-State. Ranjan Sharma, Judge [Oral] At the very outset, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgement passed in CWP No.10600 of 2024, titled as Atul Sharma versus Union of India and others, decided on 06.01.2025 [Annexure P-9] and other connected matters. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2025:HHC:3052 - 2 - 2. Per contra, Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India, states that the claim of petitioner shall be examined in the light of the judgement passed in case of Atul Sharma [supra] and if, on facts and law, the claim of petitioner is covered in terms of aforesaid judgement, further consequential action, upon consideration, shall be taken in accordance with law. 3. Without going into merits and leaving all questions open, this Court directs the Respondents No.1 and 3 to examine the claim of the petitioner in the light of the judgement in Atul Sharma’s case [supra], and upon consideration, in case the claim of the petitioner is found to be identical to the judgement in Atul Sharma’s case then, further consequential action be taken after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of two months from today. In aforesaid terms, the instant writ petition as well as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. (Ranjan Sharma) February 20, 2025 Vacation Judge (Shivender)