Gujarat High Court
MCACP/1477/1994 of NATHABHAI VAJABHAI VADAR SABHAPATI Vs SHRI V.H.PADNAYA, MAMLATDAR on 11 March 1998
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD MISC. CIVIL APPLN.(CONTEMPT PETITION) No 1477 of 1994 in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATIONNo 14337 of 1993 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA ============================================================ 1. Whether
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC. CIVIL APPLN.(CONTEMPT PETITION) No 1477 of 1994
in
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATIONNo 14337 of 1993
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and
MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA
============================================================
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? 1 to 5 - No
-------------------------------------------------------------- NATHABHAI VAJABHAI VADAR SABHAPATIVersus SHRI V.H.PADNAYA, MAMLATDAR
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MR JAYANT PATEL for Petitioner
MR DN PATEL, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and ��MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA
Date of decision: 11/03/98
ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per: B.C.Patel,J.)
Heard Mr.Jayant Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner. It appears that that the petition has been filed in view of the breach committed by the respondent, i.e. there is disobedience of an ad-interim order passed by the Court in Special Civil Application No.14337 of 1993. Appointment of administrator was stayed. It appears that, thereafter Special Civil Application has been dismissed against which, Letters Patent Appeal was preferred and that is also dismissed. Before about five years, elected body came to be elected.
2. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court would not like to exercise the powers, more particularly, by-election, as representatives have been elected.
3. Application stands disposed of. Rule discharged.
*****
radhan/