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

2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 65852

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M/S. GOLINE NETWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 13540/2024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 13540 OF 2024 PETITIONER:

M/S. GOLINE NETWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED

41/256 E3, KHADEEJA BUILDING, NEAR NORTH RAILWAY STATION, COCHIN ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. MOHAMMED SHANEEJ P, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED ALI, POOZHIKUTH (H), MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676121,PIN-68201 BY ADVS.

SIDHARTH O.

SUSANTH SHAJI ALBIN A. JOSEPH RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFIARS, SECRETARIATE, TRIVANDRUM,, PIN – 695001

2 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, WAYANAD, DOORDARSAN RELAY CENTRE, WAYANAD , KERALA, PIN – 673122

3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MEENANGADI POLICE STATION MEENANGADI POLICE STATION, MEENANGADI, KERALA., PIN – 673591

4 HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, DISTRICT COMMITTEE, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PALAKKUNNEL BUILDING, MUNDERY ROAD, ANAPPALAM JUNCTION, KALPETTA, WAYANAD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN – 673121

5 BHARATHIYA MAZDHOOR SANG (BMS), BMS BHAVAN, MARAYIL LINE CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PRESIDENT,, PIN – 682018

6 INDIAN NATIONAL TRADE UNION CONGRESS (INTUC)

INTUC STATE COMMITTEE OFFICE, K. KARUNAKARAN SMARAKA INTUC MANDIRAM, T.C. 43/1027 (7) PARUTHIKUZHY, MANACAUD P.O. TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PRESIDENT, 7 CENTER OF INDIAN TRADE UNION (CITU)

CITU STATE COMMITTEE OFFICE, E. BALANANDHAN SMARAKA MANDHIRAM, THAMBANOOR, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE SECRETARY, PIN – 695001 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT When this matter was called today, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw this Writ Petition, with liberty being reserved to his client to approach this Court again appropriately.

Consequently, this Writ Petition is dismissed as having been withdrawn; with the afore requested liberty being reserved to the petitioner.

Sd/-

RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top