Gujarat High Court
LPA/396/1985 of M.C.ENTERPRISE Vs SHARAD ENTERPRISE A FIRM, on 23 December 1998
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No 396 of 1985 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? 2. To be
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No 396 of 1985
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and
MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH
============================================================
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.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question 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?
-------------------------------------------------------------- M.C.ENTERPRISEVersus SHARAD ENTERPRISE A FIRM, -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR KB PADIA for Appellants (Absent) MR PV NANAVATI for Respondent No. 1 (Absent) NOTICE SERVED for Respt No.2,3,4,5
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH Date of decision: 23/12/98
ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per Patel, J. )
On 12.11.1998, we dictated an order dismissing this matter for non-prosecution under the impression that this matter was notified in the Board of 9.11.1998. However, it was brought to our notice that this matter was on the Board of 2.11.1998 and was adjourned to 12.11.1998. In view of this, we directed the office to notify this matter again on Board and accordingly, this matter is again notified on today's Board. Even today, when the matter is called out, learned advocate for the appellant is absent and no arrangement is made to conduct this matter. In this view of the matter, with anguish, we are constrained to dismiss this matter for non prosecution.
csm./���------------------