Gujarat High Court
MCACP/1485/1993 of BARODA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs BARODA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION on 20 November 1995
OF GUJARAT MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1485 OF 1993 Date of decision: 20.11.1995. For approval and signature The Honourable Mr. Justice S.M. Soni and The Honourable Mr. Justice R.R. Jain Mr.R.D.Raval, advocate for petitioner. Mr.Pranav G. Desai, advocate for respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1485 OF 1993
Date of decision: 20.11.1995.
For approval and signature
The Honourable Mr. Justice S.M. Soni
and
The Honourable Mr. Justice R.R. Jain
Mr.R.D.Raval, advocate for petitioner.
Mr.Pranav G. Desai, advocate for respondents.
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 judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of judgment?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
���Coram: R.R.Jain & R.R.Jain,JJ.
���----------------------------
���Novemberr 20, 1995.
Learned advocates for the parties are absent.
On record, there is a writ from the Supreme Court to the effect that other proceedings pending before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Misc. Civil Application No.1485 of 1993 be and hereby stayed. This interim relief appears to have been granted pending final hearing 4.2.1994. It is not shown or informed to this court by either of the advocates that whether the said petition is admitted or not. When it was to be listed on 4.2.1994, it was the duty of the advocates to let this court know as to what further proceedings took place. If the petition was admitted, the principles of merger may apply and on final disposal of that petition, the petitioner will be at liberty to take action under the Contempt of Courts act if he so advised and if the contempt is committed. When it is not informed, it can be said that no order to stay further proceedings is there after 4.2.1994.
The impugned order of which the breach is alleged is an award of the Labour Court. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the Alahar Co-operative Credit Service Society v. Sham Lal, reported in 1955 (2) GLH 550, Labour Court is not a court subordinate to High Court within the meaning of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
In this view of the matter, the petition is not maintainable and it deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.