This contempt proceeding addressed an alleged violation of an order directing respondents to decide a representation. The court held no willful violation occurred as the respondents complied by passing an order on 26.06.2018. The application was disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C/MCA/216/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 216 of 2018
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1844 of 2014
==========================================================
HARJIBHAI PURSOTTAMBHAI
Versus MUKESHKUMAR G
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MR DEEP D VYAS(3869) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI Date : 03/07/2018 ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY)
1.This Misc. Civil application is filed under the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
alleging that the respondents have violated the
directions issued in the order dated 20.04.2017
passed by this Court in Special Civil Application
No.1844 of 2014.
2.In the aforesaid order, without expressing any
opinion and without recording any finding on merits,
the respondents were directed to decide the
representation filed by the applicants.
Page 1 of 2
C/MCA/216/2018 ORDER
3.Learned counsel appearing for the respondents
has produced a copy of the order dated 26.06.2018,
which is passed in compliance of the directions
issued by this Court.
4.In that view of the matter, it cannot be said
that there is a willful and deliberate violation of
the order of this Court. Granting liberty to
challenge the order dated 26.06.2018, if the
applicants are aggrieved, this Misc. Civil
Application is disposed of.
(R.SUBHASH REDDY, CJ)
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)
piyush
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the direction issued in S.C.A. No. 1844 of 2014 to decide the representation was willfully violated by the respondents.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
HARJIBHAI PURSOTTAMBHAI
MUKESHKUMAR G
R.SUBHASH REDDY
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court