Gujarat High Court High Court

Laxmanji vs State on 30 August, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Laxmanji vs State on 30 August, 2010
Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/10323/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10323 of 2010
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

LAXMANJI
SAMASTJI MARWADI - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT, THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
SHALIN MEHTA WITH MS VIRAJ S FOZDAR
for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 30/08/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Today,
in morning Session, it was mentioned by learned advocate Mr.Shalin
Mehta that the matter identical to group of petitions being SCA
Nos.10247 to 10255 of 2010, is also filed and a request was made to
permit circulation of that matter in second session. Accordingly,
permission was granted by this Court and aforesaid matter has been
received by this Court from the Registry.

Heard
learned Advocate Mr.Shalin N. Mehta for learned Advocate Ms. Viraj S.
Fojdar for petitioner and Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned AGP for
respondent State Authority.

Issue
notice to respondents returnable on 17.9.2010. Meanwhile, ad interim
relief in terms of para 24(D) till 17.9.2010 is granted on a
condition that petitioner must have to
deposit remaining amount of rent with effect from 1st
March, 2008 till 31st
August, 2010 before Registry of this Court on or before 17.9.2010,
after adjusting amount of rent which has already been paid and
accepted by respondent authority. This ad interim order has been
passed by this Court without prejudice to rights and contentions of
both parties. Let the Registry may accept whatever amount is
deposited by petitioner. Direct Service is Permitted.

(H.K.

Rathod,J.)

(vipul)

   

Top