Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/171/2010 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 171 of 2010
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10494 of 2008
To
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 174 of 2010
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10497 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
ASHOKBHAI
RAMESHCHANDRA BAJRANGWALA - Applicant(s)
Versus
ALLI
MOOSA RAJAH & 18 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
SHIRISH JOSHI for Applicant(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED BY DS for
Opponent(s) : 1 - 10.
MR VISHWAS K SHAH for Opponent(s) : 11 -
12.
MS KJ BRAHMBHATT for Opponent(s) : 13 - 16.
MSVARSHABRAHMBHATT
for Opponent(s) : 13 - 16.
MR PRANAV DAVE AGP for Opponent(s) : 17
- 19.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
Date
: 29/11/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
On
1.4.2010, the following order was made.
“The
record reveals that rule, which was issued by this Court on
03.02.2010 permitting service by the applicant directly has been
served on the Power of Attorney Holder of the original petitioners,
opponent Nos.1 to 10 herein, and hence, none is present on their
behalf. In the circumstances, it would be just and fair if fresh
notice of rule is issued qua opponent Nos.1 to 10, the original
petitioners, and the applicant is directed to effect service on the
original petitioners and not the Power of Attorney holder.
Accordingly,
fresh notice of RULE returnable on 30.04.2010 qua opponent Nos.1 to
10 only. Direct service permitted, subject to the applicant effecting
service only on the original petitioners and not the Power of
Attorney holder”.
Learned
advocate for the applicant fairly states that the direct service
packet was handed over to the applicant but thereafter, there are no
instructions as to whether the service has been effected on the
original petitioners or not.
In
the circumstances, without going into the merits of the issue
raised, the applications are rejected leaving it open to the
applicants to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law.
The applications are rejected. Rule discharged.
(D.A.MEHTA,
J.)
(ashish)
Top