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

Vaghela vs State on 19 March, 2012

Author: Akil Kureshi

Bench: Akil Kureshi

  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

MCA/3094/2011	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 3094 of 2011
 

In


 

MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 1278 of 2011
 

In


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 1229 of 2011
 

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

 

VAGHELA
RAMESH MAVJIBHAI & 5 - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 10 - Opponent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MRMPSHAH
for
Applicants:1-6.MS. KRUTI M SHAH for Applicant(s):1-6. 
MS MOXA
THAKKAR, AGP for Opponent(s) : 1 - 2. 
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for
Opponent(s) : 3, 
None for Opponent(s) : 3.2.1  
UNSERVED-REFUSED
(N) for Opponent(s) : 3.2.2  
NOTICE SERVED for Opponent(s) : 4,
6,10 - 11. 
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for Opponent(s) : 5,8 - 9. 
NOTICE
UNSERVED for Opponent(s) :
7, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI
		
	

 

Date
: 19/03/2012 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER 

(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) On 10.02.2012, while issuing fresh notice we have passed the following order:

"Learned counsel for the applicant stated that presumably after service of notice of this contempt application, respondent No. 3, has deposited certain amounts directly in the bank accounts of the applicants towards their salary arrears. However, the amount so deposited does not cover entire arrears required to be paid as per directions contained in para 26 of order dated 21.10.2011 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Misc. Civil Application No. 1278 of 2011. She further submitted that respondent No. 3 is in the habit of not releasing payments to the teaching staff of the school even when funds are released by the State Government and made available to the NGO concerned for this specific purpose.
Issue fresh Notice to unserved respondent No. 3 returnable on 24.02.2012. He shall remain personally present before the Court on the next date of hearing failing which, the Court may take coercive action against him. Direct service."

Thereafter, when the matter came up for further hearing on 24.02.2012, we passed the following order:

"Pursuant to our order dated 10/2/2012, one Shri Dinakarbhai B. Makwana, Trustee of the Dalit Vikas Samarpan Trust, Bharuch - respondent no. 3 is present before this Court. His advocate, learned advocate Shri Solanki prayed for time to file reply. At his request, s. o. to 5/3/2012. It is directed that said Shri Dinkarbhai B. Makwana shall remain personally present before this Court on the next date of hearing and on all subsequents date unless by order passed by the Court he is exempted from such personal present."

Once again this contempt petition came up for hearing on 05.03.2012. Following order was passed:

"Learned counsel for the applicant is granted permission to amend the cause title.
Issue notice to respondent no.3.2 i.e.Shri V.N.Makwana, president of Dalit Vikas Samarpan Trust, Bharuch, returnable on 19.3.2012.
Direct service is permitted.
We record the presence of Shri Dinkar Makwana who shall continue to remain present before the Court on subsequent dates also."

Today, learned counsel, Ms. Kruti Shah for the applicants stated that opponent No. 3/2 has refused to accept direct service of notice of this Court. An affidavit in this respect has also been filed.

Mr. N.V.Solanki, who appears for respondent No. 3/1 in the main proceedings and who had represented him on earlier occasion, stated that respondent No. 3/1 is not present today. He has also not contacted the counsel after 05.03.2012.

It is thus clear that opponent No. 3/1 has not remained present though specifically directed to appear before the Court in person on each date of hearing. Prima facie it also appears that opponent No. 3/2 has refused service of notice issued by this Court.

Under the circumstances, issue bailable warrant of Rs. 5000/- against the opponent No. 3/1 to secure his presence before this Court on the next date of hearing i.e. 02.04.2012. The warrant to be executed through Bharuch 'A' Division Police Station.

The Registry to issue fresh Notice on respondent No. 3/2 returnable on 02.04.2012 to be served through Bharuch 'A' Division Police Station for which purpose the applicants shall carry direct service to the said police station.

[AKIL KURESHI, J.] [C.L.SONI, J.] JYOTI     Top