Gujarat High Court High Court

====================================== vs Notice Served For on 24 June, 2011

Gujarat High Court
====================================== vs Notice Served For on 24 June, 2011
Author: D.H.Waghela,
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/33/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 33 of 2011
 

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

LYKA
LABS LTD 

 

Versus
 

UNION
OF INDIA - THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS
 

====================================== 
Appearance
: 
MR S GANESH, Senior Counsel for
NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for
Petitioner. 
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent Nos.1 - 2. 
NOTICE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent Nos.1 - 3. 
MR HRIDAY BUCH for
Respondent No.1. 
MR PS CHAMPANERI for Respondent
No.2. 
======================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
		
	

 

Date
: 24/06/2011 

 

ORAL
ORDER

The
petition was partly heard for final disposal. During the course of
hearing, it was asserted that the petitioner was althroughout
protected by interim order dated 16th December 1996 of the
Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.2368 of 1996, which according
to the petitioner continues to operate. It is further stated on
behalf of the petitioner that, according to the status report
obtained from the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, that Writ
Petition No.2368 of 1996 is coming up for hearing on 11th
July 2011. Therefore, the petition is required to be heard for final
disposal on merits on all issues after 11th July 2011
without entering into the issue of grant of any interim relief or
ad-interim relief. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Ganesh, appearing for
the petitioner also submitted that, under the circumstances, hearing
can be conveniently adjourned to any date after 11th July
2011 and preferably to 20th July 2011. Learned counsel,
Mr.Hriday Buch, appearing for the respondent submitted that they
would have no objection to continuing hearing on the next date, on
merits, without the issue of any interim relief being raised.
However, it was not admitted by him that the petitioner is protected
by aforesaid order of the Bombay High Court. That issue is not the
subject matter of the petition and could not be decided at this
stage. Therefore, without any comment on the stand taken by the
parties on both sides, hearing for final disposal of the petition is
adjourned to 20th July 2011. It will be open for learned
counsel to request Honourable the Chief Justice for listing of the
matter before appropriate Court.

(D.H.Waghela,
J.)

*malek

   

Top