The Anjuman I. Islam v. The Municipal Commissioner, of Greater Mumbai & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr. A. G. Kothari, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.K. K. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Shobha Ajithkumar for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Pradeep Jadhav, AGP for respondent Nos. 2. CORAM : R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR : R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR CORAM CORAM : R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR ANDANDAND D.D.D. G. KARNIK, JJ. G. KARNIK, JJ. G. KARNIK, JJ. DATEDATEDATE : JUNE 18, 2007. : JUNE 18, 2007. : JUNE 18, 2007. PCPCPC :- :- :- . states The learned counsel for the respondent appropriate application petitioner claiming refund. He further states passed within 4 weeks. On passed, should communicated petitioner within 15 thereafter. We accept statement behalf respondent - 2 - statement made, learned counsel petitioner withdraw petition. Accordingly, petition allowed withdrawn. It not expressed any opinion on any of the points raised in this petition. Sd/- KHANDEPARKAR, J.] G. KARNIK, J.] [R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.] [D. G. KARNIK, J.] [R.M.S. [D. KHANDEPARKAR, J.] G. KARNIK, J.] [R.M.S. [D. Sd/-
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.