KALYANJI SOMCHAND MAHESHWARI vs PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ CO.LTD. SUPREINTENDENT ENGINEER — C.A. No. 465/2013
Case under Section III-B. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010206592011
Filing Date
06-Jul-2011
Registration No
C.A. No. 465/2013
Diary Number
20659/2011
Order Date
12-Oct-2023
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 06-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.KALYANJI SOMCHAND MAHESHWARI
Adv. K. L. JANJANI[P-1]
Respondent(s)
-
1.PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ CO.LTD. SUPREINTENDENT ENGINEER
Adv. HEMANTIKA WAHI[R-1]
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
12-Oct-2023
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-Oct-2023
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Hima Kohli and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
-
11-Oct-2023
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Hima Kohli and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
-
04-Oct-2023
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Hima Kohli and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
-
21-Sep-2023
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Hima Kohli and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
-
03-Aug-2023
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Aug-2023
Ordinary
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Hima Kohli and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
-
16-Jul-2018
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Jul-2018
Ordinary
Registrar (A-J)
-
16-May-2018
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-May-2018
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Jan-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Dec-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
27-Aug-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-Jul-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-May-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-Aug-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-Jul-2011
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 465/2013
Case Summary: Kalyanji Somchand Maheshwari v. Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. (C.A. No. 465/2013) The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal on October 12, 2023, upholding the High Court's Division Bench judgment. The Court found that the appellant was ineligible for compassionate appointment because his elder brother was already employed with Bharat Petroleum Corporation. Although the appellant's mother submitted two applications—disclosing the brother's employment in the first but concealing it in the second—the appellant's appointment was based on the incomplete application. The Court ruled that internal family arrangements (the brother's separate residence and ration card) cannot override the Standing Order 295's explicit condition denying compassionate employment benefits when any family member is already employed. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts