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 1]

Gujarat High Court

Dilipkumar B Pandey vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 15 October, 2013

Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt

Bench: S.R.Brahmbhatt

                C/SCA/10564/1996                                             JUDGMENT




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                     SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10564 of 1996



         FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:



         HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT

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

         1   Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
             the judgment ?

         2   To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

         3   Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
             judgment ?

         4   Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
             to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any
             order made thereunder ?

         5   Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?

         ================================================================
                             DILIPKUMAR B PANDEY....Petitioner
                                         Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondents
         ================================================================
         Appearance:
         MR. RAKESH R. PATEL, LD. AGP for the Respondents No. 1 - 2
         MS LILU K BHAYA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent No. 3
         NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent No. 1
         ================================================================

                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT

                                    Date : 15/10/2013


                                    ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 2

HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Sat Aug 06 05:14:45 IST 2016 C/SCA/10564/1996 JUDGMENT In this matter petitioner was informed for making arrangement to represent his case and petitioner is said to be served in the month of January, 2013, as could be seen from the record. No one appears today when the matter is called out. It is therefore dismissed for default. Rule discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Court for restoration within a period of thirty (30) days from knowledge of dismissal for default, and in case if the petitioner is approaching the Court, then the request will be considered on merits.

Office to send writ of this order at last known address to the petitioner.

(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) vgn Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Sat Aug 06 05:14:45 IST 2016