Gujarat High Court
SCA/6163/1987 of MULCHAND PYARELAL AGRAWAL Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 4 December 1996
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 6163 of 1987 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 6163 of 1987
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE
============================================================
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?
-------------------------------------------------------------- MULCHAND PYARELAL AGRAWALVersus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MS JULI DESAI for Petitioners MR MUKESH PATEL for Respondent No. 1 MR AD MITHANI for Respondent No. 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE Date of decision: 04/12/96
ORAL JUDGEMENT The counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that in view of the Full Bench decision of this court in the case of Songadh Group Gram Panchayat vs. Ramanlal reported in AIR 1984 (Guj.) 140 nothing substantial survives in this Special Civil Application.
The counsel for the respondents also contended that the controversy raised by the petitioners in this Special Civil Application is squarely covered against them under the aforesaid Full Bench decision of this court.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid admitted position by the learned counsel for the parties, this Special Civil Application is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted by this court stands vacated.
Dt.4-12-1996.����(S.K. Keshote,J)