Gujarat High Court High Court

Shailesh vs Reliance on 22 February, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Shailesh vs Reliance on 22 February, 2010
Author: R.M.Doshit,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice K.M.Thaker,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

OJCA/54/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 54 of 2010
 

In


 

STAMP
NUMBER No. 4424 of 2009
 

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

 

SHAILESH
P MEHTA - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

RELIANCE
PETROLEUM LIMITED - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
VISHWAS K SHAH for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR MAULIK R.SHAH FOR NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for
Opponent (s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 22/02/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE
K.M.THAKER)

Rule.

Mr.Maulik R.Shah, learned advocate for Nanavati Associates appears
for and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of opponent. With
cosent the application is taken up for hearing today.

Present
application has been taken out under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act with a request for condonation of delay of 56 days in preferring
an application seeking review/recall of the judgment and order dated
7.9.2009 11.9.2009. Mr.Maulik Shah, learned advocate has
vehemently opposed the application.

Mr.Vishwas
K.Shah, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that, instead of
delay of 56 days, the actual delay would come to about 3 days as
per applicant’s calculation, however, the applicant has prayed for
condonation of delay of 56 days as calculated by the office.

Considering
the submission and the explanation given in the application, we deem
it fit to condone the delay. Hence the prayer in terms of paragraph
8(a) is granted. Delay is condoned. Rule is made absolute. No order
as to costs.

(
K.M. THAKER, J) (MS. R.M. DOSHIT, J. )

syed/

   

Top