Gujarat High Court
CRA/159/1992 of KOKILABEN V. LOKHANDWALA Vs HEIRS OF C.G. GANDIWALA NARMADABEN C.G. LOKHANDWALA on 20 November 1998
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 159 of 1992 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
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 159 of 1992
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
1
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?
-------------------------------------------------------------- KOKILABEN V. LOKHANDWALA
Versus
HEIRS OF C.G. GANDIWALA NARMADABEN C.G. LOKHANDWALA -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MR AH MEHTA for Petitioners
MR SURESH M SHAH for Respondent No. 1
None present for other Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE
Date of decision: 20/11/98
ORAL JUDGEMENT
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank vs. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1996 (5) SCC 550, it cannot be said that the learned trial court has committed any material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in passing of the impugned order, which calls for the interference of this Court under section 115, C.P.C..
The civil revision application is dismissed.
Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted by this Court stands vacated. No order as to costs.
**********
zgs/-