Whether this case involves a substantial question v. MUNI. CORPN. OF AHMEDABAD & 2
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2679 of 1986 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2682 of 1986 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2684 of 1986 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2687 of 1986 To SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2693 of 1986 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2697 of 1986 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2699 of 1986 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2700 of 1986 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2702 of 1986 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2707 of 1986 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2710 of 1986 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2711 of 1986 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2716 of 1986 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ============================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 4 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ============================================================== BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD. & 1 - Petitioner(s) Versus MUNI. CORPN. OF AHMEDABAD & 2 - Respondent(s) ============================================================== SCA/2679/1986 JUDGMENT Appearance : NANAVATI & NANAVATI for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. MR MITUL K SHELAT for Respondent(s) : 1, Shri D.A. Desai, AGP for State in first 9 matters Shri M.R. Mengdey, AGP for State in 10 matters. ================================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 20/09/2005 ORAL JUDGMENT In all these petitions, the respective petitioners had challenged the action of the respondent Corporation in withdrawing certain benefits with regard to payment of octroi, warehousing facilities etc. It appears from the record that the godowns of the respective petitioners are now in the local limits of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, i.e., within the octroi limits. By virtue of afflux of time all these petitions have become infructuous. Hence, all these petitions are disposed of having become infructuous. Rule is discharged. Liberty to apply in case of difficulty. RMR. { M.R. Shah, J. } SCA/2679/1986 JUDGMENT
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 20 Sep 2005. The bench was M R SHAH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.