The High Court of India at Ahmedabad heard a miscellaneous civil application where the petitioner was represented as having complied with directions during pendency. Consequently, the application was dismissed as not pressed sufficiently opposed.
Notice discharged; application dismissed as not pressed.
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/554/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 554 of 2018
==========================================================
SINDHVA MANUBHAI BHIKHABHAI
Versus
SUNAINA TOMAR SECRETARY
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
MR KM ANTANI, AGP(1) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 02/05/2018
ORAL ORDER
(PER :HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY)
It is represented that during the pendency of
this application, respondents have complied the
directions. As such, he is not pressing this
application for adjudication on merits.
In view of such statement, dismissed as not
pressed. Notice discharged.
(R.SUBHASH REDDY, CJ)
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)
Jani
Page 1 of 1
SINDHVA MANUBHAI BHIKHABHAI
SUNAINA TOMAR
R. Subhash Reddy
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court