Gujarat High Court
SCA/8849/1990 of BHAGWAN M BHAVANI Vs KANDLA PORT TRUST on 8 December 2000
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 8849 of 1990 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred
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 GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 8849 of 1990
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI
============================================================ 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 Civil Judge? : NO
-------------------------------------------------------------- BHAGWAN M BHAVANI
Versus
KANDLA PORT TRUST
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MR KETAN DAVE, Advocate for MR HAROOBHAI MEHTA for Petitioner MR MI HAVA for Respondent No. 1 - Abent
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI
Date of decision: 08/12/2000
ORAL JUDGEMENT
The grievance of the petitioner was that he should not be discontinued from working as Estate Manager in-charge. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner has retired and therefore, the question of his remaining in-charge as Estate Manager over and above his own duties does not survive and the petition has become infructuous. Rule is therefore discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief stands vacated.
-----