Oral order dismissing a petition for want of prosecution due to the absence of the petitioner's counsel on the second call.
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/SCA/3568/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3568 of 2018
================================================================
JAY TENEMENT AND ROW HOUSE OWNERS ASSOCIATION
Versus
ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN & 4 other(s)
================================================================ Appearance:
MR VINOD M GAMARA for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 NILESH J GOSAI(7325) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 13/08/2019
ORAL ORDER
Even in the second call, learned advocate for the petitioner was absent, hence the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Notice is discharged.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
URIL RANA
Page 1 of 1
Jay Tenement and Row House Owners Association
Electricity Ombudsman
A.Y. Kogje
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
