Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8331 (GAU)

SRI BALAJI CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED v. AMARDEEP SINGH BHATIA AND ANR

Cont.Cas(C)/125/2025 · 2025-05-26

Sanjay Kumar Medhi

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010041542025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/125/2025 SRI BALAJI CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED RAJAMAIDAM ROAD, JORHAT-785001, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI RAJESH KUMAR AGARWALLA, RESIDENT OF RAJAMAIDAM ROAD, JORHAT-785001, ASSAM VERSUS AMARDEEP SINGH BHATIA AND ANR SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, DEPARTMENT FOR PROMOTION OF INDUSTRY AND INTERNAL TRADE (EARLIER KNOWN AS DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION) UDYOG BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110001. 2:SHER SINGH MEENA UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT FOR PROMOTION OF INDUSTRY AND INTERNAL TRADE (EARLIER KNOWN AS DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION) UDYOG BHAWAN NEW DELHI-110001 Advocate for the Petitioner : DR ANKIT TODI, MR A NATH,MS. R JUGLI,MS M PARBIN Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R K D CHOUDHURY (R-1,2), MS. L DEVI(R-1,2) Page No.# 2/2 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 27.05.2025 Heard Ms. R. Jugli, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri R.K.D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents. The instant contempt petition was filed alleging wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 09.11.2023 passed in WP(C)/2415/2014. Notice was issued on 07.03.2025 whereafter the respondents have entered appearance through Shri Choudhury, the learned counsel. The matter pertains to a direction for making certain payments. Shri Choudhury, the learned counsel for the respondents has however informed that such payments have been made in the meantime. The aforesaid submissions have been admitted by Ms. Jugli, the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid development, this Court is of the opinion that there is no requirement to continue this contempt petition further. Accordingly, the same stands closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant