SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SHAKDHER, TARA VITASTA GANJU
Alleima Materials Technology – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


JUDGMENT

[Physical Court hearing/Hybrid hearing (as per request)]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (ORAL):

CM Nos.39168-69/2022

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 12894/2022 & CM No.39167/2022 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]

2. Issue notice to the respondents.

3. Mr Ravi Prakash accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2, while Mr Pragyan Pradip Sharma accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.3 to 5, i.e., the representatives of the domestic industry.

4. Counsel for the respondents say that they do not wish to file counter-affidavits in the matter.

4.1. Furthermore, counsel for the parties state that the writ petition can be taken up for final hearing and disposal, at this stage itself.

5. This writ petition is directed against the disclosure statement dated 29.08.2022. In effect, the petitioner seeks a direction that the petitioner's categorization as "non-cooperative" should be set aside.

6. Before we proceed further it is relevant to note that that the petitioner was formerly known as Sandvik Materials Technology (China) Co. Limited.

7. Mr Gopal Jain, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top