Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
AO/45/2008 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
APPEAL
FROM ORDER No. 45 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
=================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=================================================
PIYUSH
JAYANTILAL GANDHI OWNER OF M/S GANDHI ROAD - Appellant(s)
Versus
VALSAD
NAGAR PALIKA & 2 - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DAKSHESH MEHTA for Appellant(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED BY DS for
Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 14/06/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
This
appeal is filed against an order dated 10th May 2007
passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Valsad below Exhibit
15 in Special Civil Suit No.8 of 2006, by virtue of which Special
Civil Suit No.8 of 2006 filed by the present appellant came to be
returned for presentation to the Gujarat Public Works Contracts
Dispute Arbitration Tribunal.
2. Learned
advocate Mr.Mehta has submitted that this Appeal From Order was
listed before this Court and order dated 5th September
2008 was passed by this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Akil
Kureshi) dismissing the appeal. Thereafter, Misc. Civil Application
No.39 of 2009 was filed by the appellant seeking review of order
dated 5th June 2008. Initially, rule was issued by order
13.01.2009 by this Court and after hearing both the sides, this Court
(Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Akil Kureshi) was pleased to allow Misc.
Civil Application No.39 of 2009 by order dated 16.03.2010, and order
dated 05.09.2008 passed in Appeal From Order No.45 of 2008 is
recalled. The matter was directed to be placed for fresh hearing
before the appropriate court.
This
matter was listed for hearing on 05.04.2010 and the appeal was
admitted. On the returnable date, viz. 26.04.2010, though the
notices were served to the respondent-Nagarpalika, no one has filed
appearance or appeared before this Court. In the interest of
justice, the matter was adjourned to 14.06.2010.
3. On
14.06.2010, i.e. today, when the Appeal From Order is called out
nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents. It is noticed that
though served, the respondent has not chosen to appear before the
Court.
4. Heard
learned advocate Mr.Dakshesh Mehta for the appellant. He has
submitted that in view of the provisions of sec.2(1)(i) of the
Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Act, 1992, only
such class of local authorities, who are specified in the
notification issued by the State are considered as ‘Public
Undertakings’ within the meaning of this Act. Here, in this case,
till today, no notification is issued by the State specifying the
respondent-Nagarpalika as a ‘public undertaking’.
5. He
has also submitted that the respondent-Nagarpalika is an autonomous
body and does not fall within the definition of ‘public undertaking’.
6. He
has also drawn attention of the Court to order dated 16.03.2010
passed in Misc. Civil Application No.39 of 2009 in Appeal From Order
No.45 of 2008, wherein the learned advocate appearing for the
respondent has not disputed the position that Notification was
issued by the State Government covering Valsad Nagarpalika for the
purpose of such tribunal.
7. Mr.Mehta
has further relied upon the order passed by the Division Bench of
this Court dated 03.03.2004, in First Appeal No.1041 of 2003, wherein
it is held that any dispute between the contractor and Junagadh
District Panchayat would not be within the purview of the said
Tribunal.
8. Considering
the submission of Mr.Mehta and also considering order dated
16.03.2010 passed by this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Akil
Kureshi) in Misc. Civil Application No.39 of 2009 in Appeal From
Order No.45 of 2008 and also order dated 03.03.2004 passed by
Division Bench (Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.R. Vyas and Hon’ble
Mr.Justice M.C. Patel) in First Appeal No.1014 of 2003, this Court is
of the opinion that the Appeal From Order is required to be allowed
and the judgement and order dated 10.05.2007 passed below exh.15 in
Special Civil Suit No.8 of 2006 by the learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Valsad is required to be quashed and set aside. Order
accordingly. The appellant is directed to present Special Civil Suit
No.8 of 2006 before the learned Senior Principal Civil Judge, Valsad.
9. At
this stage, Mr.Mehta submitted that in view of the original order
dated 05.09.2008 passed by this Court, the appellant has already
presented the suit before the Arbitration Tribunal. If it is so, the
Arbitration Tribunal shall return the suit and the appellant shall
present the Civil Suit No.8 of 2006 before the Court of the learned
Principal Civil Judge, Valsad.
10. As
the suit is of 206, Mr.Mehta requested that the civil court be
directed to decide the suit within six months from the date of
receipt of the papers of Civil Suit No.8 of 2006. The request is
granted and the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Valsad is
directed to decide Special Civil Suit No.8 of 2006 within six months
from the date of receipt of papers. The Appeal From Order is allowed
(RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.)
karim
Top