Gujarat High Court
SCR.A/137/1999 of RAJESH NATWARLAL SAMPAT Vs KRISHNARAJ NATWARLAL SAMPAT on 12 December 2000
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No 137 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No 137 of 1999
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE
============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO 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? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- RAJESH NATWARLAL SAMPAT
Versus
KRISHNARAJ NATWARLAL SAMPAT
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA for Petitioner
MR DM THAKKAR for M/S THAKKAR ASSOC. for Respondent No. 1 MS HANSA PUNANI, APP for Respondent No. 3
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE
Date of decision: 12/12/2000
ORAL JUDGEMENT
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that both the courts have not committed any error what to say any illegality in exercise of their jurisdiction in passing of the impugned order. It is a case where the petitioner is trying to convert the civil dispute into criminal dispute. The petitioner and respondent No.1 against whom he filed criminal application, are real brothers. The dispute pertains to some shares pertaining to the wife of the brother of father of the petitioner which was alleged to have been misappropriated by the respondents. This case was not believed by both the courts below and rightly so. In the result, this special criminal application fails and the same is dismissed. However, dismissal of this special criminal application will not come in the way of the petitioner to make his claim for shares by filing a suit if it is within limitation. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
.......
(sunil)