SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(Guj) 259

A.S.QURESHI
CHHABILDAS SHANTILAL PATEL – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: H.D.CHUDASAMA, S.T.MEHTA

A. S. QURESHI, J.

( 1 ) THE present petitioner was Respondent No. 2 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1936/83 (hereinafter referred to as the previous application ). The previous application was heard and disposed of by this court by the judgment dated 2nd May, 1984. This court was informed that the Respondent No. 2 was served but had remained unrepresented by choice. The said respondent No. 2 in the previous application filed the present application on 19th September, 1984 written in Gujarati language and presented personally before the court. In this application, the petitioner has made out a case that he was not served with the notice of the previous application and that when he came to know about the aforesaid judgment of this court in the said application, he rushed to this court stating that the aforesaid judgment was rendered without hearing him as he had no notice or informtion about the previous application. This court issued Rule on the State of Gujarat as well as the petitioner of the previous application who was the original complaint.

( 2 ) MR. H. D. Chudasama, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner not having been duly served and th






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top