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

Jadiben Nathubhai Dathiya vs State Of Gujarat Through Deputy ... on 18 September, 2018

Author: K.M.Thaker

Bench: K.M.Thaker

        C/SCA/3093/2015                            ORDER



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

          SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3093 of 2015
==========================================================
                 JADIBEN NATHUBHAI DATHIYA
                            Versus
   STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. VISHAL P THAKKER(7079) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR KRUTIK PARIKH, AGP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED(64) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER

                          Date : 18/09/2018
                           ORAL ORDER

1. This   petition   was   called   out   in   first  session,   however,   learned   advocate   or   the  petitioner was not present.  

2. Though   any   request   for   passover   or  adjournment   was   not   made,   only   with   a   view   to  granting   one   opportunity   to   the   petitioner   /  learned   advocate   for   the   petitioner,   the   Court  deferred the hearing till second session. 

3. Now, in second session, when the petition is  again   called   out   and   taken   up   for   hearing,  learned advocate / the petitioner is not present.  Page 1 of 3 C/SCA/3093/2015 ORDER

4. Even in second call, any request for passover  or  adjournment  is also  not  made.  The petitioner  has neglected the proceedings. 

5. In present petition, the petitioner (original  claimant   before   the   learned   Labour   Court)   has  challenged   award   dated   19.12.2014   whereby   the  learned   Labour   Court   rejected   /   dismissed   the  reference. 

6. It   appears   that   since   the   learned   Labour  Court has dismissed the reference, the petitioner  has   probably   abandoned   the   proceeding   or   the  cause   to   prosecute   the   petition   now   does   not  survive   and   probably   the   petitioner   is   not  interested in prosecuting the petition on merits. 

7. That appears to be the reason for absence of  the   petitioner   /   learned   advocate   for   the  petitioner. 

8. Be that as it may, since the proceedings are  not  attended   and despite   two calls,  any  request  for passover or adjournment is also not made, the  Page 2 of 3 C/SCA/3093/2015 ORDER petition   is   dismissed   on   ground   of   non­ prosecution.  Rule is discharged.

(K.M.THAKER, J) BHARAT Page 3 of 3