Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/79/2006 2/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR MODIFICATION OF ORDER No. 79 of 2006
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
====================================================
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 the 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 ?
====================================================
KAYAM
MOHMED ABDULLA SHIRMANI - Applicant(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Opponent(s)
====================================================
Appearance
:
MR
GK RATHOD for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR
HARDIK C RAWAL for Opponent(s) :
1,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 13/02/2006
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. Rule.
Mr.Hardik Raval, learned advocate waives the service of rule on
behalf of the opponent.
2. By
way of this application, the applicant ? original respondent has
prayed to modify the order dtd.14/6/2005 passed by this Court in
Special Civil Application No.1750 of 2005 to the extent of deleting
the sentence by which it is recorded in the order that the respondent
workman has expired during the pendency of the present petition.
3. Mr.Rathod,
learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted
that the report of the Baliff was based upon the Death Certificate
of another person and by mistake and through over sight, the Baliff
has made report that the applicant has expired. Mr.Rathod has
submitted that even the applicant is personally present before this
Court and he identifies him. He has also produced xerox copy of the
Talati Cum-Mantri, Mota Liliya Gram Panchayat to the effect that the
applicant is still alive. Under the circumstances, it appears that
there was some bonafide mistake on the part of the Baliff who has
made a report earlier that the applicant has expired.
4. In
view of the above, the order passed by this Court dtd.14/6/2005 in
Special Civil Application No.1750 of 2005 is modified to the extent
that in the last 9th line of the said order, the sentence
?SIt is required to be noted that during the pendency of the present
Special Civil Application the respondent workman has expired.?? is
ordered to be deleted. Office to issue fresh writ accordingly. Rule
is made absolutely to the aforesaid extent. However, there will be no
order as to costs.
5. In
view of the above, the opponent herein now to comply with the
Judgement and Award passed by the Labour Court, Amreli in Reference
(LCA) No.5 of 2002 as it is now found that the applicant is alive.
(M.R.SHAH,J.)
rafik
Top