Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S.AARTI BRICKS CO. versus DR. GAURAV GUPTA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/s.Aarti Bricks Co. v. Dr. Gaurav Gupta - CR-1249-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 2472 (21 April 2006)

Civil Revision No.1249 of 2004 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No.1249 of 2004

Date of decision: April 5,2006

M/s.Aarti Bricks Co. V. Dr. Gaurav Gupta Present: Shri Ashish Kapoor, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Shri C.B.Goel, Advocate,or the respondent.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
VINEY MITTAL,J.(ORAL)

Defendant is the petitioner before this court. Along with the suit, he filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for issuance of ad-interim injunction. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the learned trial Court. However, on appeal filed by him, the learned first appellate court allowed the aforesaid appeal and without going into merits of the legality of order dated November 19,2003 passed by the Director, Food and Supplies,Haryana, the defendant was allowed to complete the construction of the brick kiln. However, it is directed that he will not make kacha bricks and will also not stack the same in the brick kiln so as to operate it with fire to make the pucca bricks till final disposal of the suit.

The present revision petition was admitted vide order dated January 18,2005 . Operation of the order passed by the learned first appellate court was stayed by this court. However, the competent authority was directed to hear the plaintiff, if so desired by him, before granting regular licence.

It is apparent that the aforesaid interim order passed by this court has remained operative for a period of more than one year. In these circumstances, it would be wholly inappropriate to vacate/modify the Civil Revision No.1249 of 2004 2

aforesaid order, at this stage.

Consequently, the present revision petition is disposed of and the order passed by the learned appellate court is stayed during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned trial court. The plaintiff would be at liberty to approach the competent authority, if so desired by him, for objecting to the grant of regular licence to the defendant.

April 5,2006 ( Viney Mittal )

sks Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.