Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Xtra Freight Forwarder vs The Union Of India And 4 Ors on 16 August, 2023

Author: Manish Choudhury

Bench: Manish Choudhury

                                                                 Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010179172023




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : WP(C)/4674/2023

         XTRA FREIGHT FORWARDER
         A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY SRI ANIL BAREJA, D-246,
         GROUND FLOOR, GALI NO. 10, NEAR METRO STATION, LAXMI NAGAR,
         NEW DELHI-110092.



         VERSUS

         THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS.
         REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAY, RAIL
         BHAWAN, RAISINA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001.

         2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER

          NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
          MALIGAON
          GUWAHATI
          KAMRUP(M)
          PIN- 781011.

         3:THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER
          NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
          MALIGAON
          GUWAHATI
         ASSAM
          PIN- 781011.

         4:THE DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER
          NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
          RANGIYA
         ASSAM
          PIN- 781354.
                                                                         Page No.# 2/2

            5:THE RAILWAY BOARD

             REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (FREIGHT MARKETING)
             MALIGAON
             GUWAHATI
             ASSAM
             PIN- 781011

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR P BHARDWAJ

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I.




                                     BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

                                          ORDER

Date : 16-08-2023 Mr. P. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of subsequent events leading to termination of the contract, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous as the petitioner needs to assail the termination order. He has, thus, submitted that the writ petition is to be closed.

Mr. D.J. Das, learned CGC for all the respondents is in attendance.

In view of the above submission made by Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant