b DELHI {< 14. + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW CRL.M.C. 415012009 ANNAPURNA INDUSTRIAL RES OURCES LTD & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: \zlr. Nilesh Kumar, Adv. for Mr. Ashish Midha. Advocate VETSUS REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Manmeet Singh, Adv. \ ..... Respondent 15.+ ./gI-.NI.c. tlllzoog ANNAPURNA INDUSTRIAL RES OURCES LTD & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Adv. for Mr. Ashish Midha. Advocate VETSUS REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES Through: Mr.Manmeet Singh, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KTIANNA ORDER o/o 29.08.2011 Though these two matters were referred by the learned Single Judge after noticing conflicts in the decisions rendered in Anita Chsdhs v. Registrar of Companies, 74.(1998) DLT 537 and Webcity Infosys v. Registrar of Compunies, (2007) 98 DRJ 710, yet learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has instructions not to press the petitions Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified > ) r- ! 2:1 I preferred under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure dod". Learned counsel for the respondent fairly stated that he has no objection for the withdrawal of the petitions but the issue of law be kept open. Needless to emphasise, when the petitioner expressed its intention to withdraw the petitions, this Court need not proceed to answer the reference as that would be a totally academic exercise. In view of the aforesaid and keeping the controversy that has been referred by the learned Single Judge open, the petitions are permitted to be withdrawn. t7';'4 CHIEF JUSTICE a- lr,*- SANJIV KHANNA, J AUGUST 29,2OIT pk 't \ {t