Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/14239/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 14239 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 429 of 2010
With
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 14238 of 2010
In
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 343 of 2010
=========================================
PARTH
PARENTERAL PRIVATE LIMITED - THRO' SHAILESH RAMPRASAD - Applicant(s)
Versus
PFIZER
PHARMACEUTICAL (INDIA) PVT LTD THROUGH YASH GOYAL & 2 -
Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR MIHIR
THAKORE with MR BB NAIK for M/S TRIVEDI & GUPTA
for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR
SUDHIRCHANDRA with MR SV RAJU with MR SHALIN N MEHTA for
Respondent(s) :1 -2.
MR KP RAVAL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 3,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 02/12/2010
COMMON
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard
Shri Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Bharat B. Naik,
learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respective
applicants and Shri Sudhirchandra, learned Senior Advocate with Shri
S.V. Raju, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Shalin Mehta, learned
advocate appearing on behalf of the private respondents –
original petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case and
with the consent of learned counsels appearing for respective parties
and considering the fact that as such main petitions were already
fixed for final hearing in the month of April 2010 and for one reason
or the other, the same could not be taken up for final hearing and
considering the fact that investigation has been stayed, main
petitions being Special Criminal Application Nos.429/2010 and
343/2010 are ordered to be listed for final hearing on 14th
December 2010 on separate board, to be taken up at 2.30 p.m..
2. In
the meantime, pleadings may be completed by the learned counsels
appearing for respective parties and if possible, learned counsels
appearing for respective parties may keep the written
submissions/arguments ready so as to save the time of the Court as
well as their time also.
3. In
view of the above, learned counsels appearing for respective
applicants does not press the present applications. Accordingly,
with above direction, both these applications are dismissed as not
pressed.
(M.R.
Shah, J.)
*menon
Top