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

1996 Supreme(Guj) 443

K.R.VYAS
YOGESHBHAI D. SHETH – Appellant
Versus
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: B.H.CHHATRAPATI, G.R.PATHAK, G.T.DAYANI, HARIN P.RAVAL, K.N.RAVAL, P.M.RAVAL

K. R. VYAS, J.

( 1 ) ). The appellants, in this group of three appeals, have challenged the orders dated 29/03/1996 below Exs. 5 and 6 in Civil Suit Nos. 4913 of 1995, 5105 of 1994 and 5106 of 1994 passed by the Auxiliary Chamber Judge, court No. 18, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, whereby the learned Judge has vacated the ad-interim injunctions granted earlier. Since the facts of these three appeals are common and the question of law involved therein is also common, they can conveniently be disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) ). In view of the fact that number of other suits are pending in the City Civil court at Ahmedabad in respect of the same subject-matter, at the request of the learned Advocates for the parties, it was decided to hear these matters finally and the learned Advocates were heard at length.

( 3 ) ). Civil Suit No. 4913 of 1995 has been filed by 13 shop-owners (hereinafter referred to as "the occupiers") of the building known as Urvashi Tower, constructed on final plot No. 368 of T. P. Scheme No. 3 of the Ahmedabad Municipal corporation. The society had submitted the plan and the respondent granted permission according to the plan. However, the society carried out

































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