Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SA/164/2002 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SECOND
APPEAL No. 164 of 2002
=========================================================
KUMANBHAI
CHATRABHJUBHAIHUJBHADARANIYA & 18 - Appellant(s)
Versus
MANAVADAR
MUNICIPALITY BOROUGH & 14 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
BHASKAR P TANNA WITH MR BHAVDUTT H BHATT for TANNA ASSOCIATES
for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 19.
MR MURALI DEVNANI FOR MR YOGESH S LAKHANI
for Defendant(s) : 1,
MR HS MUNSHAW for Defendant(s) : 2,
MS
VAIJANTI PATHAK AGP for Defendant(s) : 3,
MR BHARAT JANI for
Defendant(s) : 4 - 6,8 - 15.
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Defendant(s)
: 7,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE BELA TRIVEDI
Date
: 23/06/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Leave
to amend the name of respondent No.1-Municipality in the cause-title
of the Appeal. Amendment be carried out immediately during the course
of the day.
2. This
is one of the old matters, which has suddenly cropped up on admission
board after many years and nobody knows as to how and why it was not
listed and heard for such a long time. Any way, without stretching
the matter any further, the Appeal is heard on merits with the
consent of the learned advocates for the parties.
3. Heard
learned Senior advocate Mr.Bhaskar P. Tanna with Mr.Bhavdutt H. Bhatt
for the appellants, learned advocate Mr.Murali Devnani for learned
Senior advocate Mr.Y.S. Lakhani for respondent No.1, learned A.G.P.
Ms.Pathak for respondent No.3 and learned advocate Mr.Bharat Jani for
respondent Nos.4 to 6 and 8 to 15. None is present for the other
respondents.
ADMIT.
4. The following
substantial questions of law arise for determination before this
Court:-
“1. Whether the
Courts below have materially erred in law in mis-appreciating the
evidence on record and in not granting the declaration and injunction
as sought for in the suit, while holding that the concerned
respondents-original defendants could not terminate the services of
the plaintiffs without following the due process of law?
2. Whether the Courts
below have materially erred in law in holding that the Civil Court
did not have the jurisdiction to try the suit and grant the reliefs,
as prayed for, in the suit?”
(BELA
TRIVEDI, J.)
Hitesh
Top