Gujarat High Court High Court

State vs O on 7 October, 2011

Gujarat High Court
State vs O on 7 October, 2011
Author: K.M.Thaker,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

COMA/276/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

COMPANY
APPLICATION No. 276 of 2010
 

In


 

COMPANY
PETITION No. 79 of 1989
 

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


 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

O
L OF M/S VIJAY MILLS CO LTD (IN LIQN.) & 4 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for
Applicant(s) : 1,MS MAITHILI D MEHTA for Applicant(s) : 2, 
OFFICIAL
LIQUIDATOR for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR RM DESAI for Respondent(s) :
1, 
MR JS YADAV for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR NAGESH C SOOD for
Respondent(s) : 2, 
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 3 - 4. 
MR
DS VASAVADA for Respondent(s) :
5, 
=========================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 07/10/2011 

 

ORAL
ORDER

At
11:00 a.m., learned A.G.P. Ms. Mehta made a request for adjournment
on the ground that learned Government Pleader who is instructed to
appear in this matter is still held up in a part heard matter, the
hearing of which is in progress since 4th
October 2011 and the hearing of the said matter is likely to be
concluded today. On such ground, learned A.G.P. requested that
hearing of this application may be adjourned to next week or any
other date convenient to this Court.

When
the request was made by learned A.G.P., the learned Advocates for the
opponents were not present. Hence, the request was not
accepted/granted at that point of time.

Now
when the application is called out and taken up for hearing in
regular course/in seriatim, Mr. Sood, learned Advocate for respondent
No.2 has also requested for time on the ground that he has not
received the duly sworn/affirmed affidavit from his client. He has
submitted that the affidavit is required to be tendered on the
record. However, since it is still not received, some time may be
granted.

Learned
Advocate for O.L. has no objection if the request as made by learned
A.G.P. and Mr. Sood, learned Advocate for respondent No.2 is granted.
Mr. R.M.Desai and/or any Advocates appearing on behalf of respondent
Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. Vasavada, learned Advocate for respondent No.5
are not present.

Therefore,
having regard to the request made by learned Advocate Mr. Sood and
learned A.G.P., hearing is adjourned to 19th
October 2011.

(K.M.THAKER,
J.)

jani

   

Top