Gujarat High Court
MCACP/185/1994 of ASHOKBHAI GUPTA Vs ISHWARBHAI K. PRAJAPATI on 15 November 1995
OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO.185 OF1994. Date of decision:15.11.1995. For approval and signature The Honourable Mr. Justice S.M.Soni and The Honourable Mr. Justice R.R.Jain Mr.Akil Kureshi, advocate for petitioners. Mr.J.R.Nanavati, advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr.
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
��MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO.185 OF1994.
Date of decision:15.11.1995.
For approval and signature
The Honourable Mr. Justice S.M.Soni
and
The Honourable Mr. Justice R.R.Jain
Mr.Akil Kureshi, advocate for petitioners.
Mr.J.R.Nanavati, advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Mr. Suresh M. Shah, advocate for respondent No.4.
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: S.M.Soni & R.R.Jain, JJ.
��----------------------------
��November 15, 1995.
Oral judgment (Per Soni, J)
Petitioners have complained against the respondents for breach of the order passed by Registrar's Nominee in Lavad Case No.544/92 dated 18.8.1992. Any order passed breach of the order passed by Registrar's Nominee in Lavad Case No.544/92 dated 18.8.1992. Any order passed by the Board of Nominee is executable under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code under the Co-operative Societies Act itself. The Supreme Court in the case of the Alahar Cooperative Credit Service Society v. Sham Lal, 1995 (2) GLH, 550, has held that contempt proceeding is not a substitute for execution and, therefore, we are of the opinion that when the grievance can be redressed with another mode provided in the Act itself this Court should refuse to entertain the contempt petition like this. As there are disputed questions as well as there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioners, we would not like to interfere and entertain this application. Hence, petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.