Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1169/2005 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1169 of 2005
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2839 of 2004
with
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 7970 of 2005
==============================================================
DIWANSINH
KANUBHAI VAGHELA - Appellant(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Respondent(s)
==============================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SUBRAMANIAM IYER for
Appellant(s) : 1 (absent)
MS MONALI H BHATT for Respondent(s) :
1,
==================================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL
Date
: 27/09/2005
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA)
Learned
counsel Mr.Subramaniam Iyer for the appellant was absent when the
matter was called out in second sitting at about 3.25 p.m. However,
Ms.Monali Bhatt for respondent-Corporation was present. She has
stated at the Bar that by making false statement, Mr.Iyer for the
appellant got the matter adjourned on the ground that the
appellant-workman was called few days back by the
respondent-Corporation at its office and some proposal was made to
him. She has produced a letter dated 26.9.2005 addressed by
Divisional Controller, Vadodara addressed to her, wherein it is
stated that no such proposal was ever made and no talk of compromise
is going on between the parties. The same is ordered to be taken on
record.
Such
type of conduct of the appellant and his counsel requires to be
strongly deprecated for getting the matter adjourned on previous
date. Be that as it may. In our considered opinion, on this ground
alone, without going into any other question, the matter is required
to be dismissed as there is a growing tendency amongst the litigants
to make such false statements and get favourable orders from the
court. Even otherwise, on merits also, we are fully satisfied that
the learned Single Judge rightly allowed the writ petition filed by
the respondent-Corporation.
In
view of the above, this appeal is dismissed.
Civil
Application for stay is dismissed as the main Letters Patent Appeal
is dismissed.
(B.J.SHETHNA,
J.)
(M.C.PATEL,
J.)
pvv
Top