Back
DEVAN M. DESAI
Jyotsanaben R Patel – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Aditya Davda, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for respondent Nos.1 to 4. The board reflects that learned advocate Mr. Deepak Sanchela appears for and on behalf of respondent No.5, but he remained absent.
2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Prit U. Shah for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda for the respondents. Perused the record.
4. By way of this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of a Commissioner for local investigation should only be done for convenience and after considering the evidence produced b....
The judgment established that there is no bar for appointment of Commissioner even in a simple suit for injunction if circumstances warrant such appointment, and the duty of the Court is to find out ....
The High Court’s supervisory power under Article 227 can only be exercised to correct grave errors; dismissal of Advocate Commissioner application upheld as lawful.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
