Gujarat High Court High Court

Union vs Messrs on 18 November, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Union vs Messrs on 18 November, 2010
Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SA/114/1992	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SECOND
APPEAL No. 114 of 1992
 

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

 

UNION
OF INDIA OWING & REPRESENTING WESTERN - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

MESSRS
HARIBHAI MADHAVLAL & 1 - Defendant(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
SHANTILAL S SHAH for
Appellant(s) : 1,MR RAVI KARNAVAT for Appellant(s) : 1, 
MR MAHESH
B SHAH for Defendant(s) : 1, 
MS MEGHA JANI for Defendant(s) :
2, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 18/11/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Learned
Advocate Mr.SHantilal S.Shah and learned Advocate Mr. Ravi Karnavat
are appearing for appellant. Learned Advocate Mr. Mahesh B.Shah is
appearing for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Ms. Megha Jani is
appearing for respondent NO.2.

This
Second Appeal is preferred by Union of India owning and representing
Western Railway through General Manager, Western Railway,
Churchgate, Bombay and the amount which has been involved in this
second appeal as per decree passed by trial court in plaintiff’s
suit No. 139 of 1987 is Rs.4117.65 ps., where it was directed to
defendant to pay Rs.4117.65 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent
per annum from the date of suit till its realization. Defendants are
directed to pay costs of suit and bear their own costs. Appeal being
Regular Civil Appeal NO. 31 of 1989 was preferred by respondent NO.1
Haribhai Madhavlal which was allowed by judgment dated 18th
October, 1991 by Extra Assistant Judge, Mehsana.

Today,
when this matter was called out, learned Advocate Mr. Shantilal S.
Shah as well as learned advocate Mr. Ravi Karnavat appearing for
appellant have not remained present, therefore, considering
smallness of the amount involved in this appeal, Rs.4117.65 ps.,
considering entire matter as it is, this court is feeling that it is
not necessary to wait for advocate appearing for appellant and to
adjourn this matter. Therefore, this matter is dismissed for
default.

(H.K.

Rathod,J.)

Vyas

   

Top