Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Gujarat · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6293 (GUJ)

DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED v. INDUS TOWERS LTD.

SCA/18982/2023 · 2026-03-05

Aniruddha P Mayee

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18982 of 2023 ========================================================== DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED Versus INDUS TOWERS LTD. & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR MAULIK NANAVATI FOR NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for Petitioner(s) No. 1 DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR RAJABHAI J GOGDA(3628) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Date : 05/03/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is impugning the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Forum in Review Application No.154 in Appeal No.143/2022-23 as also the order dated 17.12.2022 passed in Appeal No.143/2022-23 cancelling the supplementary bill raised by the petitioner company. 2. Mr. Rajabhai J. Gogda, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 has submitted affidavit on behalf of the respondent No.1. The same is taken on record. By the said affidavit, it is stated that the respondent No.1 has paid the bill amount which is the dispute involved in the present writ petition. The amount of the supplementary bill in dispute has been duly paid and the receipt thereof is also placed on record. 3. Mr. Maulik Nanavati, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that since the respondent No.1 has deposited the total amount of the disputed supplementary bill so issued to the p. 2 respondent No.1, the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside. 4. Considered the submissions and the fact that the respondent No.1 has paid the total amount of the supplementary bill raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the issue raised in the present writ petition has been rendered academic and the adjudication in respect of the supplementary bill is not required to be carried out. In view of the peculiar background of the facts and the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, the impugned orders passed by the appellate authority are hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. No order as to costs. (ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN