Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/4075/2019 of M/S SIGMA CONVERTORS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS on 8 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4075 of 2019 Decided on: 08.09.2026 M/s Sigma Convertors ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge Whether approved for
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.4075 of 2019 Decided on: 08.09.2026 M/s Sigma Convertors
...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others … Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Goverdhan Lal Sharma, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Penal Counsel for respondent No.1 (UOI) : Mr. Ishaan Kashyap, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
( Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i). A writ of mandamus/certiorari setting aside the impugned order dated 20.11.2019 (Annexure P-2);
(ii) A writ of mandamus/certiorari setting aside the impugned order dated 18.01.2019 (Annexure P-11),
(iii) . Hold that petitioner is not required to pay any amount of demand and grant full stay till the time the appeal is decided by respondent No.4. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.
(iv) Direct respondent No.4 to grant expeditious hearing and decide the appeal in a time bound manner;
(v) The cost of the writ petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent No.1,2,3 and
4. ”
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that while assailing the impugned order in this Court, the petitioner had also availed the statutory appellate remedy and in the light of the fact that its appeal has been allowed, this petition has been rendered infructuous. He submits that the petition can be closed as such. The petition stands disposed of on account of subsequent developments. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge (Yogesh Jaswal)
Judge September 08, 2026 (meera)