Sarda 65 C's G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon V. Paancha Raghoun and Ram Niwas Union of India, through Secretary Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi and Commissioner of Income Tax, New Central Revenue Building Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) and Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rajgandgaon (C.G.)

WP/934/2005

AI Insights

In this case, the petitioner, Sarda 65 C's G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon, sought permission from the High Court of Chhattisgarh to withdraw their petition. The petition was initially filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking certain reliefs. However, before the court could proceed with the substantive issues, the petitioner, through their counsel, submitted that the reliefs they were seeking had already been granted by the respondents. Consequently, the learned counsel for the respondents did not object to the withdrawal of the petition. Given these circumstances, the court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 820193 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2009
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AJAY BATIK; NAUSHINA ALI
• Assessee Lawyers: NEELABH DUBEY
• Keywords: Withdrawal of Petition; Grant of relief

Judgement Text

"§ $ u I N T H E H I G H C O U R T O F C H H A ’ I T I S G A R H ' B I L A S P U R W n ‘ t P e t i t i o n N o 9 3 4 0 f 2 0 0 5 P e t i t i o n e r S a r d a 6 5 C s . G E . R a a d , R a j n a n d g a c n . V e x s u s R e s p o n d e n t s 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . [ V I ] s . P a a n c h a R a g h o u ’ I ‘ a a n k , R a m N i w a s U n i o n o r I n d i a , t h r o u g h S e c r e t a r v M i n i s t r v o f F i a a n c s , N a r t h B l o c k , N 6 V D s m ‘ i . C e n t r a l B o a n d o f D i r e c t T a x e s , N e w D e l h i . C o m m i s s i o n e r o f I n c o m e T a x , N e w C e n t r a l R e v e n u e B u i i d i n g C i v i l L i n e s , R a i p u r ( C . G . ) I n c o m e T a x O f i i c e r , W a r d - 1 , R a j g a n d g a o n ( C . G . ) ( W r i t P e t i t i o n u n d e r A r t i c l e 2 2 6 / 2 2 7 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f l n d i a ) ( S B : H o n ’ b l e S h r i S a t i s n K . A g n i h o t r i J , ) S h r i N e e l a b h D u b e y , A d v o c a t e i o r t h e p e t i t i o n e r . S h n ‘ A j a y B a t i k , A d v o c a t e f o r t h e r e s p o n d e n t N o . l . M s N a u s h i n a A l i , A d v o c a t e i o r t h e r e s p o n d e n t s N o . 2 t o 4 . T h a k u r O R D E R ( P a s s e d o n t h i s 3 r d D a y o f F e b r u a r y , 2 0 0 9 ) L e a m e d c o u n s e l a p p e a n ‘ n g f o r t h e p e t i t i o n e r , o n i n s t r u c t i o n s , s u b m i t s t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r s e e k s p e r m i s s i o n o f t h i s C o u r t t o w i t h d r a w t h i s p e t i t i o n o n t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e r e l i e f s o u g h t f o r i n t h i s p e t i t i o n h a s a l r e a d y b e e n g r a n t e d b y t h e r e s p o n d e n t s . L e a r n e d c o u n s e l a p p e a r i n g f o r t h e r e s p o n d e n t s h a v e n o o b j e c t i o n . I n V i e w o f _ t h e f o r e g o i n g , t h i s p e t i t i o n i s d i s m i s s e d a s W i t h d r a w n . S d L S a t i s h K . A g n i h o t r i J u d g e "