Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs Deepak Nitrite Limited & on 21 April, 2016

Author: K.M.Thaker

Bench: K.M.Thaker

                  C/CA/3573/2016                                             ORDER




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

         CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR FIXING DATE OF HEARING) NO. 3573 of 2016
                                            In
                    SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1313 of 2011

         ==========================================================
              REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
                   DEEPAK NITRITE LIMITED & 1....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MS E.SHAILAJA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
         MR AMRESH N PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
         MR K.M. PATEL, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR VARUN K.PATEL,
         ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         ==========================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER

                                   Date : 21/04/2016


                                    ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Ms. Shailaja, learned advocate for the  applicant   and   Mr.   K.M.   Patel,   learned   senior  counsel   with   Mr.Patel,   learned   advocate   for  respondent No.1 as well as Mr.A.N. Patel, learned  advocate for respondent No.2.

2. Rule.     Mr.V.K.   Patel,   learned   advocate   for  respondent   No.1   and   Mr.A.N.   Patel,   learned  advocate for respondent No.2 have waived service  Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Fri Apr 22 01:45:48 IST 2016 C/CA/3573/2016 ORDER of Rule.

3. Considering   the   nature   of   the   application,  the application is heard today for final order.

4. The main petition was listed on 13.4.2016 and  was   adjourned   to   today.     Today,   along   with   the  application  the petition  is also  listed  in  view  of the order passed on 13.4.2016.  Therefore, the  petition   is   taken   up   for   final   hearing   today.  Thus,   the   request   made   in   the   application   does  not survive / stands granted and the application  stands   allowed   to   the   extent   prayed   for   in  paragraph   No.9(B).   Therefore,   Rule   is   made  absolute to the aforesaid extent.

(K.M.THAKER, J.) Bharat Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Fri Apr 22 01:45:48 IST 2016