Gujarat High Court High Court

Appearance vs Unknown on 10 January, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Appearance vs Unknown on 10 January, 2011
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/12511/2003	 2/ 2	JUDGMENT 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12511 of 2003
 

 
For
Approval and Signature:  
 
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI              Sd/-
 
 
=========================================================

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

1
		
		 
			 

Whether
			Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?    
			                   Yes   
			
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

2
		
		 
			 

To be
			referred to the Reporter or not ?      No
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

3
		
		 
			 

Whether
			their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?       
			                    No  
			
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

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 ?                                  No
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

5
		
		 
			 

Whether
			it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?                       
			                     No
		
	

 

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

 

JAGDEEP
INDUSTRIES THROUGH PARTNER 

 

Versus
 

G.I.D.C.
AND ANOTHER 

 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
YN RAVANI for
the Petitioner 
MR MG NAGARKAR for the
Respondents 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 10/01/2011 

 

ORAL
JUDGMENT

1. Heard
learned advocate Mr. Y.N. Ravani for the petitioner and learned
advocate Mr. M.G. Nagarkar for the respondents.

2. In
substance, the question which now survives after an order already
passed by this Court in Civil Application No.1491 of 2008 on
6.8.2008, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of
Rs.5,54,191/- under protest subject to final order that may be passed
in this petition, and the respondent-GIDC was directed to issue ‘No
Due Certificate’, is only about the rent, about which the claim of
the petitioner is that the petitioner is not liable to pay as the
petitioner was deprived of enjoyment of the plot for ‘no fault’ on
his part.

2.1. Learned
advocate Mr. Ravani for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the
Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of RAICHURMATHAM PRABHAKAR
AND ANOTHER Vs RAWATMAL DUGAR reported in (2004)4 Supreme
Court Cases 766.

3. Without
going into all these aspects as they involve disputed questions of
fact, the parties are relegated to the remedy of filing civil suit in
the matter and to raise all the contentions raised in this petition
or which may be related to the dispute involved in the matter. With
this observation, petition is disposed of. Rule is discharged with no
order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.

Sd/-

(RAVI
R.TRIPATHI, J.)

omkar

   

Top