Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
Kalpanaben vs Kamal on 15 November, 2011
Author: Abhilasha Kumari,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/17065/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17065 of
2011 
=========================================================

 

KALPANABEN
DILIPKUMAR SHARMA - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

KAMAL
B TRIVEDI ADVOCATE GENERAL, GUJARAT STATE - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
JT TRIVEDI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MR.DEVENDRA H PANDYA for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR
PK JANI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER with MS SK VISHEN, AGP for Respondent(s)
: 1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HON'BLE
			SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
		
	

 

Date
: 15/11/2011  
ORAL ORDER

1. Mr.

J.T. Trivedi, learned advocate for the petitioner states that he may
be permitted to delete the name of Mr. K.B. Trivedi from the array of
the respondent and implead the Advocate General in the official
capacity. Permission to do so is granted. The necessary amendment be
carried out forthwith.

2. Mr.

P.K. Jani, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent
has tendered a copy of the communication dated 12.11.2011, addressed
to the petitioner, which states that the application dated 25.8.2010
seeking permission of the learned Advocate General under Section
15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for initiating contempt
proceedings against the opponents, has been decided and consent has
been declined. The said communication, along with its annexures, is
taken on the record of the case. It is further stated that, as the
application of the petitioner has been decided, the prayers made in
the petition no longer survives.

3. Mr.

J.T. Trivedi, learned advocate for the petitioner states that as the
prayers in the petition have been met, an appropriate order be
passed.

4. In
view of the above, the petition is disposed of, as having become
infructuous.

[SMT.

ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.]

mrpandya

   

Top


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.203 seconds.