Gujarat High Court
SCA/2425/1986 of RAJENDRA RATILAL SHAH Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 16 April 2003
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2425 of 1986 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2425 of 1986
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL
and
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- RAJENDRA RATILAL SHAH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 2425 of 1986 MR VIMAL PATEL FOR M/s. NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for Petitioners MR AJ DESAI AGP for Respondent No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for Respondent No. 2 MR KN RAVAL for Respondent No. 3
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL
and
MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
ORAL JUDGEMENT
(Per : MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL)
Page 1 of 2
1. Mr. Vimal Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of M/s. Nanavati Associates, learned advocate of the petitioners, has produced letter addressed by Mr. R.G. Parikh, who is petitioner No.3, to M/s. Nanavati Associates, wherein it is stated that since the Mill Company has already been closed, the aforesaid matter has become infructuous and should be withdrawn. The said letter is taken on record of the petition.
2. In view of the contents of the said letter, Mr. Vimal Patel, learned advocate of the petitioners, prays to permit the petitioners to withdraw the petition. The prayer is not opposed by Mr. A.J. Desai, learned AGP who appears on behalf of the respondent No.1.
3. Under the circumstances, prayer to withdraw the petition is granted. Rule is discharged. There shall be no orders as to cost. The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated.
����(J.M. Panchal, J.)
����(A.M. Kapadia, J.)
���---
(karan)
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…