Gujarat High Court High Court

Chintanbhai vs State on 31 May, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Chintanbhai vs State on 31 May, 2010
Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/5339/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 5339 of 2010
 

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


 

CHINTANBHAI
AMRABHAI BHARWAD & 1 - Applicants
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent
 

=========================================================
Appearance : 
MR
BM MANGUKIYA for
Applicants:MS BELA A PRAJAPATI for Applicant:1-2. 
PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for Respondent:
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 31/05/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

When
the matter is called out, Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate for the
applicants is not present. A request is made on behalf of Mr.
Mangukiya to keep the matter back. The court is unable to accept the
request made by learned counsel looking to the number of matters
listed during vacation. Hence the request is rejected. In normal
course, the court will adjourn the matters where the counsel is
absent after vacation. In view of this, the matter is adjourned to
14.06.2010.

(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.)

pallav

Further
Order :

After
the aforesaid order was passed and the boards were over, Mr.
Mangukiya, learned advocate made a mention that the matter be listed
tomorrow. This Court is of the view that as the aforesaid order was
passed in open court, it would be appropriate for Mr. Mangukiya to
make appropriate mention in presence of all the learned advocates for
all the parties after intimating them that he is going to make
mention of this matter for changing the date of adjournment. Mr.
Shastri and Mr. Sunil Patel, learned advocates appearing for some of
the parties are present and they have objected to such request.
However, the Court is of the view that Mr. Mangukiya be given liberty
to make appropriate mention for appropriate date in presence of all
the counsels of the parties. Mr. Mangukiya has to inform learned
advocates for the parties that he is going to make mention of this
matter for changing date of adjournment.

(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.)

pallav

   

Top