Dismissed
Bhuvanchandra Upadhyay S/O Narhari Upadhyay v. Gujarat University
Gujarat HCMCA/34/2018
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD…
What the court decided
AI extract
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD…
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/34/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 34 of 2018
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6660 of 2001
========================================================== BHUVANCHANDRA UPADHYAY S/O NARHARI UPADHYAY
Versus GUJARAT UNIVERSITY
==========================================================
Appearance:
HIRAK P GANGULY(8002) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 JAY A MEHTA(9088) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MRS VD NANAVATI(1206) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED(4) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 16/07/2018
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
alleging that the respondents have not complied
with the directions issued in the order dated
01.07.2016. It is not in dispute that earlier an
amount of Rs.2,56,882/- was paid by way of
cheque, which has been received by the applicant.
Thereafter, an amount of Rs.4,13,471/- was paid,
which has also been received by the applicant.
2. According to the applicant, a further amount of Rs.99,990/- has to be received, in full
Page 1 of 2
C/MCA/34/2018 ORDER
compliance of the directions issued by the
learned single Judge in the order dated
01.07.2016.
3.Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.N. Shelat
appearing for the respondents has stated that the
differential amount will be paid within a
fortnight.
4.In view of such statement made by the learned
Senior Counsel, we deem it appropriate that this
is not a fit case to proceed further under the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Hence,
the application stands disposed of.
(R.SUBHASH REDDY, CJ)
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)
PRAVIN KARUNAN
Page 2 of 2
Bhuvanchandra Upadhyay
Gujarat University
R. Subhash Reddy
Vipul M. Pancholi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court