Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/1992/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONTEMPT No. 1992 of 2010
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14042 of 2008
=========================================================
INDRAKUMAR
L NEHLANI - Applicant(s)
Versus
M
M JIVANI HOUSING COMMISSIONER & 1 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ANAND B GOGIA for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR HS MUNSHAW for Opponent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 06/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA)
By instant contempt petition filed
u/s.12(1)(3) r/w.Section 2(b) of the Contempts of Court Act,
petitioner has prayed to take severe and strict actions against the
respondents for disobedience of the directions given in the common
oral order dated 4.2.2010 at Annexure A
to the petition.
At
the time of admission of this petition, Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned
advocate for the respondents, states that directions contained in
the common oral order dated 4.2.2010 is fully complied with and in
this connection, affidavit in reply has already been filed, which is
sworn by respondent No.1 Shri M.M.Jivani, Housing Commissioner,
Gujarat Housing Board, wherein inter-alia
it is stated that all the directions contained in the common oral
order dated 4.2.2010 has been complied with.
Mr.Anand
Gogia, learned advocate for the petitioner states that it is true
that all the directions contained in common oral order dated
4.2.2010 has been fully complied with, including payment of pension,
gratuity and PF, however, the details about how the said amount has
been calculated, has not been supplied to him.
Mr.H.S.Munshaw,
learned advocate for the respondents states that respondent No.2 is
ready to supply the said calculation if the petitioner approaches
the office of respondent No.2 – Executive Engineer, Gujarat
Housing Board, Ahmedabad.
In
view of this, since the alleged disobedience of the directions given
in the common oral order dated 4.2.2010 has been fully complied
with, this contempt petition does not assume survival value.
Therefore, the same deserves to be disposed of.
For
the foregoing reasons, the present petition stands disposed of.
It
would be open for the petitioner to approach the respondent No.2 for
getting details about how the amount has been calculated, and on
approaching the petitioner, respondent No.2 shall
supply the same to the petitioner.
Notice
discharged.
(A.M.KAPADIA,
J.)
(J.C.UPADHYAYA,
J.)
(binoy)
Top