=============================================Torrent vs Bvm on 10 August, 2010

Gujarat High Court
=============================================Torrent vs Bvm on 10 August, 2010
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Dave,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

LPA/2499/2009	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2499 of 2009
 

In


 

MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 3279 of 2009
 

In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2505 of 2009
 

 
=============================================TORRENT
POWER LIMITED - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

BVM
MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH CHARITABLE TRUST & 1 -
Respondent(s)
 

=============================================
Appearance
: 
MR
KB PUJARA for Appellant(s) : 1, 
MRS KRISHNA G RAWAL for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR PK JANI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 2, 
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=============================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 10/08/2010 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)

In
the writ petition preferred by the appellant, learned Single Judge
passed following interim order on 10.11.2009.

Rule
returnable on 23.12.2009. Mrs. Krishna Rawal, learned advocate
waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.1

In
the meanwhile, the order of the appellate authority is not stayed.
But, it is clarified that the payment which are required to be
refunded to the petitioner will be adjusted in the running bill
and/or if the petitioner succeeds in the petition, then the
petitioner will pay the amount which is adjusted in the running bill
within a period of two months.

The
said order was further clarified by order dated 14.12.2009, wherein
in place of ‘petitioner’ as appearing at all places, it was ordered
to be read as ‘respondent’. It is against the above interim order,
present appeal has been preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent.

On
30.12.2009, the appeal was admitted and ad-interim relief was granted
in terms of para 3(a) on condition that the appellant shall deposit
the amount ordered to be refunded to the respondent with this Court,
by 6.1.2010.

Para
3(a) reads as follows:-

To
stay the operation of the impugned order dated 21.12.2009 passed by
the learned Single Judge (Coram: K.S. Jhaveri,J.) in MCA No.
3279/2009 in SCA No. 2505/2009 and to stay the operation of the
interim direction passed by the learned Single Judge directing
adjustment of the amount in the running bills, during the pendency
and final disposal of the LPA.

Pursuant
to the Court’s order, the appellant has deposited the amount with
this Court. In view of such order passed on 30.12.2009, which
continued for about 7 ? months, we are of the view that the
aforesaid interim order dated 30.12.2009 should be made absolute and
to continue till the writ petition preferred by the appellant is
disposed of. The order passed by the learned Single Judge stands
substituted by the interim order dated 30.12.2009 passed by this
Court.

Both
Appeal and CA stands disposed of.

(S.J.

Mukhopadhaya, C.J.)

(K.M.

Thaker, J.)

*/Mohandas

   

Top

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *