Gujarat High Court High Court

Divisional vs Unknown on 23 April, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Divisional vs Unknown on 23 April, 2010
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

MCA/2976/2009	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 2976 of 2009
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14207 of 2008
 

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

DIVISIONAL
CONTROLLER - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

ITS
EMPLOYEES - B M AHIR - Opponent(s)
 

===================================== 
Appearance
: 
MR BHATT for MS SEJAL K
MANDAVIA for Applicant(s) : 1, 
None for Opponent(s) :
1, 
=====================================
 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	

 

Date
: 23/04/2010 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

1.0 The
learned advocate Mr. Bhatt for Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia for the
applicant moves Draft Amendment. The same is allowed. Leave to
amend the Prayer Clause is granted.

2.0 The
learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the documents which
were ordered to be produced by order dated 17th January
2009 were 03 (three) in numbers viz. i) Deposition of the Witnesses,

ii) Statement of Claim and iii) Written Statement. The learned
advocate for the applicant further submitted that on perusal of the
papers with required meticulousness it is noticed that there was no
deposition recorded before the Court below except that of the Inquiry
Officer. So far as the documents at sr. nos. ii) and iii) are
concerned, they were already produced with the petition but the
learned advocate for the applicant could not point out the same to
the Court and therefore, order passed on 18th August 2009
dismissing the matter for non-compliance of order dated
17th
January 2009 is required to be reconsidered and is required to be
recalled and in view of the averments made in Paras 2.1 and 2.2,
which are sought to be placed by Draft Amendment, the main matter is
required to be considered.

3.0 In
this view of the matter, this application requires consideration.
Hence, Rule, returnable on 3rd
May 2010. Direct service is permitted.

[
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. ]

hiren

   

Top