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]

Bombay High Court

Volvo Group India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly ... vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 3 December, 2021

Author: M. S. Karnik

Bench: Dipankar Datta, M. S. Karnik

                                                                                  11.wp.2837-21

                      PMB
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
         Digitally
         signed by
         PRADNYA
PRADNYA  MAKARAND
MAKARAND BHOGALE
BHOGALE  Date:
                                          WRIT PETITION NO.2837 OF 2021
         2021.12.03
         19:57:43
         +0530


                            Volvo Group India Pvt. Ltd.
                            (Formerly known as
                            Volvo Buses India Pvt. Ltd.)                   ..Petitioner
                                 vs.
                            The Union of India and ors.                    ..Respondents
                                                     ------------
                            Mr. Sriram Sridharan for petitioner.
                            None for respondents.
                                                     ------------
                                               CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
                                                       M. S. KARNIK, J.

DATE: DECEMBER 3, 2021 P.C. :

1. Rejection of a refund claim was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner in revision. Aggrieved by the revisional order, this writ petition has been instituted.
2. None appears for the respondents despite service.

Affidavit of service tendered by Mr. Sriram Sridharan, learned advocate for the petitioner shall be retained with the record.

3. List this writ petition once again on December 17, 2021.

4. A notice shall be served by the petitioner on the respondents informing them the next date of hearing with 1

11.wp.2837-21 an intimation that if the respondents choose not to be represented on the returnable date, the Court may proceed to consider prayer clause (c) in their absence.

(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) 2