Dismissed

Bhupendrasinh Vechatbhai Khant v. Vikramsinh Ramsinh Dindor

Gujarat HC1 May 2018LPA/460/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed an appeal filed by an elected MLA challenging the Single Judge's order allowing a defeated rival candidate to be joined as a party respondent. The Court held that the rival was a 'proper party' and an aggrieved person due to his legal injury from the cancellation of the petitioner's caste certificate and reservation benefits, thus the Single Judge did not err.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; consequently, the lower court's Civil Application was held to survive and was dismissed.

Bhupendrasinh Vechatbhai Khant Vs Vikramsinh Ramsinh Dindor — Election Law | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

C/LPA/460/2018 CAV JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 460 of 2018

¶4

In CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2018 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3239 of 2018 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2018

¶5

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶6

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

¶7

========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to No see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law No as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?

¶8

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

¶9

BHUPENDRASINH VECHATBHAI KHANT

¶10

Versus VIKRAMSINH RAMSINH DINDOR

¶11

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

¶12

Appearance:

¶13

MR PS CHAMPANERI(214) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1

¶14

MR PK JANI, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER WITH MR K.M. ANTANI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6,7

¶15

MR DIPAN DESAI(2481) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

¶16

========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY and

¶17

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI Date : 01/05/2018

¶18

Page 1 of 23

¶19

C/LPA/460/2018 CAV JUDGMENT

¶20

CAV JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)

¶21

1.The present appeal is filed under Clause-15 of
the Letters Patent against an order dated 10.04.2018,
passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil
Application No.1 of 2018 in Special Civil Application
No.3239 of 2018 by which the learned Single Judge has
allowed the application filed by present respondent
No.1 for joining as party respondent in the main
petition.

¶22

2.Heard learned advocate Mr.P.S. Champaneri for

¶23

the appellant, learned advocate Mr.Dipan Desai for
respondent No.1 and learned Additional Advocate
General Mr.P.K. Jani for the respondent authorities.

¶24

3.The present appellant, who is the original
petitioner, has filed Special Civil Application
No.3239 of 2018 in which the appellant- petitioner
has challenged the order of cancellation of Caste
Certificate issued by the competent authority in his
favour. In the said petition, the petitioner has not
joined present respondent No.1 as party respondent

¶25

Page 2 of 23

¶26

C/LPA/460/2018 CAV JUDGMENT

¶27

and, therefore, the present respondent No.1 filed
Civil Application for joining him as party respondent
in the main petition. The learned Single Judge has
allowed the said application and, therefore, being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order dated
10.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, the
appellant – petitioner has preferred the present
appeal.

¶28

4.Learned advocate Mr.P.S. Champaneri for the
appellant – petitioner has mainly submitted that
present respondent No.1 – applicant contested the
election of the Legislative Assembly Seat of Morva
(Hadaf). In the said election, the appellant has been
elected. Instead of challenging the election of the
appellant, present respondent No.1 - applicant
submitted representation before the respondent
authorities for cancellation of the Caste Certificate

¶29

of the appellant on the ground that the said
certificate is false and in fact, the appellant does
not belong to Scheduled Tribe category. The
respondentauthoritiescancelledtheCaste

¶30

Certificate issued in favour of the appellant. It is

¶31

Page 3 of 23

¶32

C/LPA/460/2018 CAV JUDGMENT

¶33

contended that respondent No.1 - applicant is not
necessary or property party to the proceedings and he
has not suffered any legal injury. Therefore, the
learned Single Judge ought not to have joined him as
party respondent in the petition.

¶34

4.1Learned advocate Mr.Champaneri would submit that
if respondent No.1 – applicant is aggrieved by the
result of the election of the Legislative Assembly,
he could have filed Election Petition under Section
100 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 before
this Court. Such Election Petition is required to be
filed within a period of forty-five days from the

¶35

date of declaration of the result. However,
respondent No.1 – applicant has failed to file such
Election Petition challenging the election of the
appellant, instead he filed the application for
joining party in the petition filed by the appellant.
However, the learned Single Judge has failed to
consider the aforesaid important aspect.

¶36

4.2 Learned advocate Mr.Champaneri further submits

¶37

that the applicant has not suffered any legal injury

¶38

Page 4 of 23

¶39

C/LPA/460/2018 CAV JUDGMENT

¶40

and, therefore, he cannot be said to be an aggrieved
person. He, therefore, cannot claim that he may be
joined as party in the petition filed by the present
appellant.

¶41

4.3Respondent No.1- applicant has not participated
in the inquiry held against the appellant for

¶42

cancellation of the Caste Certificate nor he was a
party before the respondent authority–committee. He
was not heard and, therefore, when the appellant–
petitioner has challenged the order passed by the
respondent authority–committee, respondent No.1–
applicant cannot be considered as necessary or proper
party in the proceedings filed by the appellant –
petitioner.

¶43

4.4Learned advocate for the appellant contended

¶44

that it is well accepted principle of dominus litis that the person has right to choose whom he should arraign as party and, therefore, he cannot be asked to join a person as party, who is not an aggrieved person. He submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error while allowing the application

¶45

Page 5 of 23

¶46

C/LPA/460/2018 CAV JUDGMENT

¶47

of present respondent No.1. He, therefore, urged that
the order passed by the learned Single Judge be set
aside.

¶48

4.5 Learned advocate Mr.Champaneri for the appellant has placed reliance upon the following decisions:

¶49

(i) Kanaklata Das and others vs. Naba Kumar Das

¶50

and others reported in (2018) 2 SCC 352

¶51

(ii) Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465

¶52

5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Dipan

¶53

Desai appearing for respondent No.1 – applicant has
supported the reasoning recorded by the learned
Single Judge and contended that in the memo of
petition, the appellant – petitioner has alleged
malafide against respondent No.1 – applicant. Thus,
though there are specific allegations against
respondent No.1 – applicant, he was not joined as
party respondent in the said petition. It is
contended that initially the appellant – petitioner

¶54

Page 6 of 23

¶55

C/LPA/460/2018 CAV JUDGMENT

¶56

preferred Special Civil Application No.1337 of 2018
challenging the order of the respondent authority –
committee cancelling the Caste Certificate of the
petitioner. In the said petition, respondent No.1
herein was joined as party respondent. After the
matter was remanded back to the respondent authority
– committee by this Court, fresh order came to be
passed by the respondent authority – committee.
During the course of such inquiry, the petitioner
made representation which was considered by the said
committee.

¶57

5.1Learned advocate Mr.Desai would further submit
that respondent No.1–applicant contested the election
of Legislative Assembly against the appellant –
petitioner. At the time of scrutiny of the nomination
form, respondent No.1-applicant raised an objection
before the Returning Officer and, thereafter, he has
made the complaint before the Mamlatdar, Morva as
well as District Collector, Panchmahal. However, the
Returning Officer cannot decide the validity of the
Caste Certificate and, therefore, the objection of
respondent No.1 – applicant was not considered by the

¶58

Page 7 of 23

¶59

C/LPA/460/2018 CAV JUDGMENT

¶60

Returning Officer. However, on the basis of the
representation made by respondent No.1–applicant,
after making necessary inquiry, the respondent
authority – committee passed an order cancelling the
Caste Certificate of the petitioner and, therefore,
respondent No.1 – applicant is a necessary and/or
proper party to the proceedings. In fact, respondent
No.1 – applicant belongs to Scheduled Tribe and,
therefore, when the person does not belong to
Scheduled Tribe category and has contested the
election on the basis of the false certificate, right
of the applicant to contest the election on the
reserved seat has been affected and, therefore,
respondent No.1–applicant is an aggrieved person.

¶61

5.2Learned advocate Mr.Desai has, therefore, urged
that when the learned Single Judge has not committed
any error while allowing the application filed by
respondent No.1, this Court may not entertain this
appeal.

¶62

5.3In support of the aforesaid contentions, learned
advocate Mr.Desai has placed reliance upon the

¶63

Page 8 of 23

¶64

C/LPA/460/2018 CAV JUDGMENT

¶65

decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Kuvrabhai Bharabhai Bharvad Versus
State of Gujarat in Letters Patent Appeal No.644 of
2016.

¶66

6.Learned Additional Advocate General Mr.P.K. Jani
appearing for the respondent authorities has also
supported the reasoning recorded by the learned
Single Judge and contended that as respondent No.1 –
applicant is a necessary and proper party to the
proceedings, he can be said to be an aggrieved person
as he has suffered legal injury, the learned Single
Judge has rightly joined him as party respondent in
the petition filed by the present appellant.
Therefore, this Court may not interfere with the
order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶67

7.Having heard learned advocates appearing for the
parties and having gone through the material produced
on record, it transpires that the appellant and
respondent No.1 herein contested the election of the
Legislative Assembly of Morva (Hadaf) constituency.
The said seat is reserved for Scheduled Tribe

¶68

Page 9 of 23

¶69

C/LPA/460/2018 CAV JUDGMENT

¶70

candidate. In the said election, the appellant was
declared elected. At the time of scrutiny of the
nomination form, respondent No.1 took objection
before the Returning Officer about the validity of

¶71

the Caste Certificate of the appellant – petitioner.
However, the Returning Officer cannot decide the
validity of the Caste Certificate and, therefore, at
the relevant time, the objection raised by respondent
No.1 – applicant was not considered by the Returning
Officer.RespondentNo.1,therefore,made

¶72

representation before the respondent authority–
committee alleging that the Caste Certificate issued
in favour of the appellant – petitioner is false and
the appellant does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe
category. Similar type of representations were also
received by the respondent authority in past. Thus,
on the basis of the representation made by respondent
No.1 herein, inquiry was conducted by the respondent
authority – committee. During the course of such
inquiry, representation of respondent No.1 was
considered and name of respondent No.1 is referred at
various places in the order passed by the respondent
authority - committee. The said order is under

¶73

Page 10 of 23

¶74

C/LPA/460/2018 CAV JUDGMENT

¶75

challenge before the learned Single Judge by the
petitioner. It is further revealed that in the memo
of the petition, at Page-10, the appellant–
petitioner has alleged malafide against respondent
No.1–applicant. In spite of that, respondent No.1–
applicant was not joined as party respondent in the
petition. It is further revealed that the appellant–
petitioner earlier filed Special Civil Application
No.1337 of 2018 before this Court challenging the
order passed by the respondent authority – committee.
In the said petition, respondent No.1 – applicant was
joined as party respondent. The said petition was
allowed by this Court and the matter was remanded
back to the respondent authority for considering the
matter afresh. Respondent No.1 thereafter also
submitted representation before the respondent
authority – committee and after considering the
material, the respondent authority – committee has
passed an order which is challenged by the petitioner
before this Court wherein respondent No.1 – applicant
was not joined as party respondent.

¶76

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the

¶77

Page 11 of 23

¶78

C/LPA/460/2018 CAV JUDGMENT

¶79

question which is required to be considered is
whether respondent No.1 has suffered any legal injury
and whether he can be said to be an aggrieved person
or not. Further, whether respondent No.1 – applicant
can be said to be a necessary and/or proper party to
the proceedings or not.

¶80

9.In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
present case as discussed hereinabove, it has emerged
that respondent No.1 – applicant is a member of the

¶81

Scheduled Tribe whereas it is alleged that the
appellant – petitioner though not belongs to
Scheduled Tribe category, on the basis of false Caste
Certificate issued in his favour, contested the

¶82

election of the Legislative Assembly. Thus,
respondent No.1 raised the objection at the time of
scrutiny of the nomination form before the Returning
Officer. Such objection was not considered by the

¶83

Returning Officer as he was not authorized to decide

¶84

the validity of the Caste Certificate issued in
favour of the appellant–petitioner. Thus, the genesis

¶85

is the Caste Certificate on the basis of which the
appellant – petitioner contested the election of the

¶86

Page 12 of 23

¶87

C/LPA/460/2018 CAV JUDGMENT

¶88

Legislative Assembly on reserved seat. Respondent
No.1 made representation before the respondent
authority – committee alleging that the Caste
Certificate issued in favour of the appellant –
petitioner is false and he is not a member of
Scheduled Tribe. During the course of inquiry, the
respondent authority considered such representation

¶89

as discussed hereinabove. It is well accepted
principle that necessary party is one without whom no
order can be made effectively and the proper party is
one whose presence is necessary for complete and
final decision on the issue involved. In the facts
and circumstances of the case as discussed
hereinabove, we are of the view that respondent No.1
– applicant though may not be strictly termed as
necessary party but he would be covered as proper
party.

¶90

10.Another question is whether the applicant can be
said to be an ‘aggrieved parson’ or not. It is well
accepted that the person aggrieved is one who has
suffered legal injury, meaning thereby, the prejudice
caused to the legal right. In the present case as
discussed hereinabove, respondent No.1 – applicant

¶91

Page 13 of 23

¶92

C/LPA/460/2018 CAV JUDGMENT

¶93

who is a defeated candidate, has a legal injury when
the person like the appellant – petitioner, who is
alleged to be not belong to a member of Scheduled
Tribe – Reserved Category, is permitted to contest

¶94

the election on the reserved seat meant for the
members of the Scheduled Tribe. The learned Single
Judge has rightly observed that in the democratic set
up, in order to promote the proper representation of
the different section of community or the people,
such mechanism has been evolved. If that has not been
considered, the person, who belongs to such category,
would feel that he has been deprived of his right to
represent the community. Thus, any person having
sufficient interest can make an application when the
injury or the prejudice is caused to him by violation
of some of the provisions of the Constitution or the
law.

¶95

11. The contention raised by the learned advocate Mr.Champaneri with regard to concept of dominus litis in the facts and circumstances of the present case is misconceived . In the facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed hereinabove, when

¶96

Page 14 of 23

¶97

C/LPA/460/2018 CAV JUDGMENT

¶98

respondent No.1 – applicant is a proper party to the
proceedings, the learned Single Judge has not
committed any error while allowing the application
filed by respondent No.1 and permitting him to be
joined as party respondent in the petition filed by
the appellant.

¶99

12.In the case of Kanaklata Das and others vs. Naba
Kumar Das and others (supra), the Honourable Supreme
Court has observed in Paragraph-11.4 as under:

¶100

“11.4 Fourth, the plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be compelled to make any third person a party to the suit, be that a plaintiff or the defendant, against his wish unless such person is able to prove that he is a necessary party to the suit and without his presence, the suit cannot proceed and nor can be decided effectively. In other words, no person can compel the plaintiff to allow such person to become the co-plaintiff or defendant in the suit. It is more so when such person is unable to show as to how he is a necessary or proper party to the suit and how without his presence, the suit can neither proceed and nor it can be decided or how his presence is necessary for the effective decision of the suit.”

¶101

Page 15 of 23

¶102

C/LPA/460/2018 CAV JUDGMENT

¶103

13.In the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others (supra),the

¶104

Honourable Supreme Court has observed in Paragraphs-
9, 10 and 18 as under:

¶105

Person aggrieved

¶106

“9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The

¶107

Page 16 of 23

¶108

C/LPA/460/2018 CAV JUDGMENT

¶109

existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. (Vide : State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, Saghir Ahmad & Anr. v. State of U.P., Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.; Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh; and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar & Ors.

¶110

10. A “legal right”, means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, “person aggrieved” does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised. (Vide: Shanti Kumar R. Chanji v.

¶111

Page 17 of 23

¶112

C/LPA/460/2018 CAV JUDGMENT

¶113

Home Insurance Co. of New York and State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Union of India).

¶114

xxx xxx xxx

¶115

Locus standi of respondent no.5 :

¶116

18. As Respondent no.5 does not belong to the Scheduled Tribes category, the garb adopted by him, of serving the cause of Scheduled Tribes candidates who might have been deprived of their legitimate right to be considered for the post, must be considered by this Court in order to determine whether respondent no. 5, is in fact, in a legitimate position to lay any claim before any forum, whatsoever.”

¶117

14.We cannot dispute the proposition of law laid

¶118

down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has discussed about the concept of dominus litis as well

¶119

as discussed about the “legal right” and “person
aggrieved”. However, in the facts and circumstances
of the present case as discussed hereinabove, when
respondent No.1 – applicant is an aggrieved person

¶120

and is a proper party to the proceedings, the learned
Single Judge has not committed any error while
allowing the application filed by respondent No.1 for

¶121

Page 18 of 23

¶122

C/LPA/460/2018 CAV JUDGMENT

¶123

being joined as party respondent No.1.

¶124

15.In the case of Kuvrabhai Bharabhai Bharvad

¶125

Versus State of Gujarat (supra), the Division Bench
of this Court considered the above-referred decisions
rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court and observed
in Paragraphs-10, 11 and 14 as under:

¶126

“ 10. In the case of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v/s. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and Others reported in (2010) 7 SCC 417, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph nos.15 and 25 as under:-

¶127

“15. A 'necessary party' is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the Court. If a 'necessary party' is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A 'proper party' is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in disputes in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the

¶128

Page 19 of 23

¶129

C/LPA/460/2018 CAV JUDGMENT

¶130

court has no jurisdiction to implead him,
against the wishes of the plaintiff. The
fact that a person is likely to secure a
right/interest in a suit property, after the
suit is decided against the plaintiff, will
not make such person a necessary party or a
proper party to the suit for specific
performance.”

¶131

“25. In other words, the court has the discretion either to allow or reject an application of a person claiming to be a proper party, depending upon the facts and circumstances and no person has a right to insist that he should be impleaded as a party, merely because he is a proper party.”

¶132

11. In the case of State of Asasm v/s. Union of India and Others reported in 2011 AIR SCW 3724, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph no.14 as under :

¶133

“14. We respectfully agree with the observations made by this Court in Udit Narain's case (supra) and adopt the same. We may add that the law is now well settled that a necessary party is one without whom, no order can be made effectively and a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose

¶134

Page 20 of 23

¶135

C/LPA/460/2018 CAV JUDGMENT

¶136

presence is necessary for a complete and final decision of the question involved in the proceeding.”

¶137

12. xxx xxx xxx

¶138

13. xxx xxx xxx

¶139

14. Keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various decisions, if the present case is examined, we are of the opinion that respondent authority has exercised power conferred on it under section 84(5) of the Act, 1961 on an application given by the appellant. The appellant has paid the audit fees of Rs.52,000/and as a member of respondent no.4, the appellant is interested that proper reaudit is carried out by the Special Auditor. There are allegations leveled against the appellant by name in the petition as observed hereinabove without joining him as party. Though no relief is prayed against the appellant in the petition, order appointing Special Auditor is under challenge who has been appointed on an application given by the appellant, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, present appellant is necessary and proper party to the proceedings. We have gone through reasoning given by the learned Single Judge. However, in view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the appellant is required to be joined as party respondent in

¶140

Page 21 of 23

¶141

C/LPA/460/2018 CAV JUDGMENT

¶142

Special Civil Application No.268 of 2015.”

¶143

16.Thus, from the aforesaid decisions rendered by
the Honourable Supreme Court as well as this Court,
it can be said that necessary party is one without
whom no order can be made effectively and a proper
party is one in whose absence an effective order can
be made but whose presence is necessary for a
complete and final decision of the question involved
in the present proceedings. Keeping in view the said
proposition of law, if the facts discussed
hereinabove are examined, we are of the view that the
presence of respondent No.1 – applicant is necessary
for a complete and final decision of the question
involved in the petition pending before the learned
Single Judge. Thus, respondent No.1 – applicant is a
proper party to the proceedings and, therefore, he is
required to be joined as party respondent in the
petition.

¶144

17.In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of
the view that the learned Single Judge has not
committed any error while allowing the application
filed by respondent No.1. The present appeal is

¶145

Page 22 of 23

¶146

C/LPA/460/2018 CAV JUDGMENT

¶147

devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently,
the Civil Application does not survive and is
disposed of, accordingly.

¶148

(R.SUBHASH REDDY, CJ)

¶149

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)

¶150

PIYUSH

¶151

Page 23 of 23

Bhupendrasinh Vechatbhai Khant v. Vikramsinh Ramsinh Dindor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupendrasinh Vechatbhai Khant v. Vikramsinh Ramsinh Dindor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhachau Gymkhana Pvt. Ltd. Vs Piyush Patel

Gnaneshwary D Shah Vs M.a.Chauhan, Joint Director of Technical Education (Administration)

Kokila J Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Diyora Bhanderi Corporation Vs Sarine Technologies Ltd.

State of Gujarat Vs Rajeshbhai Lalkabhai Bhabhor

State of Gujarat Vs Rajeshbhai Lalkabhai Bhabhor