Gujarat High Court High Court

Appearance : vs Mr Is on 21 July, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Appearance : vs Mr Is on 21 July, 2010
Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&Nbsp;Honourable K.M.Thaker,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

LPA/1017/1998	 2/ 2	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1017 of 1998
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4597 of 1998
 

 
 
For
Approval and Signature:  
 
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD  
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
 
 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

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 ?
		
	

 

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


 

STATE
OF GUJARAT 

 

Versus
 

G
H CHAKRAVARTY 

 

======================================
 
Appearance : 
Ms Moxa
Thakkar, AGP for the Appellant  
Mr IS
Supehia for the Respondent  
======================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
		
	

 

Date
: 21/07/2010 

 

ORAL
JUDGMENT

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)

Heard
the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the enquiry has
been completed and after various judicial proceedings though the
delinquent was earlier punished, but has been exonerated, punishment
awarded was set aside and he has been superannuated. In that view
of the matter, we do not see that the compensation which has been
ordered by the learned Single Judge is now required to be paid to the
delinquent. In that view of the matter, that part of the order
where it is ordered that compensation be paid to the delinquent is
set aside. No other order is required because, enquiry has already
been completed.

In
that view of the matter, appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.

(Bhagwati
Prasad, J.)

(K.M.

Thaker, J.)

*mohd

   

Top