UNION OF INDIA . vs W.H.TARGETT (INDIA) LTD. . — SLP(C) No. 26902/2008

Case under Section XVI. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010320352008

Filing Date

05-Nov-2008

Registration No

SLP(C) No. 26902/2008

Diary Number

32035/2008

Order Date

13-Sep-2011

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 06-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section XVI

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA .

    Adv. SUSHMA SURI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.W.H.TARGETT (INDIA) LTD. .

    Adv. B. VIJAYALAKSHMI MENON

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Sep-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 06-Sep-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 25-Aug-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 11-Aug-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 19-Jan-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 26-Nov-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 22-Oct-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 01-Oct-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 01-Sep-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 13-Jul-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 27-Apr-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 30-Mar-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 16-Mar-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 26-Feb-2010
  16. 15-Feb-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 29-Jan-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 14-Dec-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 10-Nov-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  20. 08-Dec-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  21. 17-Nov-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  22. 14-Nov-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  23. 12-Nov-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  24. 05-Nov-2008

    Case filed

    Registration No. SLP(C) No. 26902/2008

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of SLP(C) No. 26902/2008 - Union of India v. W.H. Targett (India) Ltd. The Supreme Court dismissed the Union of India's special leave petition challenging the Calcutta High Court's rejection of a review application. The Court upheld the High Court's jurisdiction and found the respondent's case valid on merits, noting that 90% shareholding remained with Mincing Lane Investments Ltd. before and after a name change. The Court directed the Union to implement the original 1998 judgment without further delay and vacated interim relief previously granted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case