The High Court, upon the petitioner's undertaking to deposit a specific amount within six weeks, granted an extension considering the peculiar facts. The petition was disposed of as withdrawn.
Six weeks time granted to deposit the amount; petition disposed of as withdrawn.
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/8562/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8562 of 2019
=============================================== R.K. M. HEALTHCARE (INDIA)
Versus
ROYAL LABS OWNED BY SANGEETA P PANDYA THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE PANKAJBHAI BALKRISHNA PANDYA
=============================================== Appearance :
MR MANISH R RAVAL(1250) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3 CHHATRADHARI G PASI(8891) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 VASIMRAJA A KURESHI(8609) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
===============================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. SHASTRI Date : 10/05/2019 ORAL ORDER
[1] The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs:
“8. A) This Honourable Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 8.3.2019 passed by the Learned 14 th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below Exh.16 in Summary Suit No.87 of 2013;
B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable court may be pleased to stay the further proceedings in respect of the Summary Suit No.87 of 2013 pending before the Learned 14th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in in Summary Suit No.87 of 2013, in the interest of justice;
C) to grant such other and further relief that may be deemed and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case”
[2] At the outset, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner has
Page 1 of 2
C/SCA/8562/2019 ORDER
categorically submitted that petitioner is inclined to withdraw the petition, not inviting any order on merit and has also tendered an undertaking to show willingness to deposit the amount, which has been ordered vide order dated 08.03.2019. But in view of the peculiar facts of the case and in view of the condition to deposit only 20% amount, the time which has been reflected in the undertaking cannot be granted and resistance of other side is also such that this period is enough and not possible to be extended in any form.
[3] Considering this, upon hearing, learned advocate for the petitioner, on instructions, has stated before the Court that six weeks time from today be granted so as to enable the petitioner to deposit amount and petition may be permitted to be withdrawn.
[4] Considering the aforesaid submissions made by learned advocate and in view of broad consensus, six weeks' time, which are ending on 21.06.2019, is granted to deposit an amount which has been ordered vide order dated 08.03.2019. It is made clear that this six weeks time granted upon express undertaking orally given before the Court through learned advocates, violation of same would entail serious consequences and would automatically have effect of implemention of the impugned order .
[5] With these observations, petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.
(A.J. SHASTRI, J)
DHARMENDRA KUMAR
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant time for deposit of amount and permit withdrawal of the writ petition.
Whether to entertain withdrawal of the petition pending admission and disposal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.K. M. Healthcare (India)
Royal Labs owned by Sangeeta P Pandya
A.J. Shastri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
