Gujarat High Court High Court

Chandubhai vs Sub on 26 August, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Chandubhai vs Sub on 26 August, 2010
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/3822/1993	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3822 of 1993
 

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

 

CHANDUBHAI
I PATEL - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

SUB
REGISTRAR & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

==============================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
MP PRAJAPATI for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR VM PANCHOLI, AGP,  for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3. 
==================================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 10/10/2005 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

1. Heard
the learned counsel for the respective parties. The issue involved in
this petition is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by a Larger
Bench of this Court in the case of Shaileshkumar Vs. Sub-Registrar,
Vadodara, reported in 1996(3) GLR 783 (=1996(2) GLH 848).

2. In
this case the notice issued by the authorities under the Stamp Act
has been challenged without filing reply before the concerned
authority. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid decision of the Larger
Bench, interests of justice would be met by giving the following
direction:

?SIt will be open for the
petitioner to file a reply before the concerned authority within a
period of eight weeks from today. If such a reply is submitted within
a period of eight weeks from today, the competent authority shall
consider and decide the matter without raising any objection about
the delay. It is further directed that the recovery shall not be
given effect to till the matter is finally decided in accordance with
law.??

3. The
petition is accordingly disposed of. Subject to the above direction
rule is discharged with no order as to costs.

[K.S.

JHAVERI, J.]

   

Top