Gujarat High Court High Court

Ashirwad vs Chairman on 3 February, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Ashirwad vs Chairman on 3 February, 2010
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/7185/2005	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7185 of 2005
 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6742 of 2005
 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6741 of 2005
 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6365 of 2005
 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5912 of 2005
 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5453 of 2005
 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5057 of 2005
 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4992 of 2005
 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4910 of 2005
 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4138 of 2005
 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3219 of 2005
 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2926 of 2005
 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1455 of 2005
 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 642 of 2005
 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 356 of 2005
 

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

 

ASHIRWAD
TILES PVT. LTD. THR' ITS DIRECTOR - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

CHAIRMAN,GUJARAT
ELECTRICITY B OARD & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
DS CHAUHAN for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2. 
MR DIPAK R DAVE for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 03/02/2010
 

COMMON
ORAL ORDER

Inspite
of the earlier order dated 12th January 2010, the
application for substituting the nomenclature of the Gujarat
Electricity Board has not been filed. Therefore, the present
petitions are deemed to have been dismissed for default. Accordingly,
the same shall be treated as dismissed. Rule is discharged in each
petition with no order as to costs.

The
Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in each of the
petitions.

(K.S.

Jhaveri, J)

Aakar

   

Top