Gujarat Court December 1983 Judgments
M.L. Makwana Vs. the District Judge and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR315
P.S. Poti, C.J.1. This appeal is against an order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the petitioner's application challenging the penalty of removal from service passed by the High Court in exercise of its power under Rule 22 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The petitioner was a Junior Clerk in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khambhaliya. While so, on 30-8-1976, he is said to have obtained the signatures of three persons-Osman Ali, Gani Mussa and Noormamad Umar in the Muddamal Register in token of their receipt of muddamal articles of Criminal Case No. 596 of 1975, but he is said to have failed to actually hand over the muddamal articles to them. A charge was framed against him by the District and Sessions Judge, Jamnagar. An inquiry was held into the charge but the disciplinary authority did not find him guilty on the materials before him. No further action was taken against hi...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Desai and Co. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-1983
Reported in: (1984)2GLR1522
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is a petition by one firm, which was dealers appointed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., the sole respondent in this petition. The grievance in this petition, after it was amended, in that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondent-Corporation to resume the supplies of petroleum products to the petitioner-firm and also directing the respondent-corporation not be terminate the arrangement with the petitioner-firm and also for a writ directing cancellation of the impugned decision of the respondent-corporation dated 24-11-82 (passed during the pendency of this petition) and for other reliefs.2. In order to understand the controversy a few facts are required to be noted carefully. The petitioner-firm consists of one Desai and his brother's wife. The respondent is a Corporation wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, it is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as it was discharging the Governmental...
Tag this Judgment!N.H. Dhyani and ors. Vs. Dena Bank and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-16-1983
Reported in: (1984)2GLR1441
A.P. Ravani, J.1. If you start with confusion, no amount of industry and perseverance can get you relieved from the cobweb. Harder you work and get the confusion worse confounded. This is what has happened in this case wherein the petitioners who are serving as officers in the respondent-Bank have inter alia prayed that the respondent-Bank be directed to take certain obligatory steps as required under the provisions of Dena Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979.2. The petitioners are serving as Officers in the respondent-Dena Bank, a Government of India undertaking. Prior to 1-7-1979 there were three types of Officers in the respondent-Bank, namely. Scale 'A' Scale 'B' and Scale 'C' Officers in descending order. For the purpose of this petition the position of the respective petitioner as on June 30, 1979 is relevant. On June 30, 1979 the petitioners Nos. 1 to 9 were holding the post of erstwhile Officer Grade 'C while petitioners Nos. 10 to 12 were holding the post of erstwhile of...
Tag this Judgment!Gunvantrai Manibhai Desai Vs. B. Narsinhmm and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR603
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This old writ petition, though fixed for final hearing earlier along with the Letters Patent Appeal No. 203 of 1980, unfortunately could not be taken up earlier though the said appeal was disposed of long ago. The petition has been filed by one citizen, claiming to be a voter on the voters' list to elect agriculturists, prepared for the purpose of constitution of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Valsad. He was holding at the relevant time the Office of the Vice-President of the said Committee. He filed the petition at the time when the elections for the constitution of the New Committee under Section 11 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity's sake, were in the offing. Section 11(1) of the said Act provides that the market committee consists of various types of members listed in Clauses (i) to (v), but in this petition we are concerned with eight agriculturists to be elected by members of the Mana...
Tag this Judgment!Natubhai Dahyabhai Patel Vs. A. Ayanger, District Development Officer ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-1983
Reported in: (1984)2GLR1419
S.A. Shah, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer, Class-111 in the year 1955 in the Government Dispensary, Bayad, district Sabarkantha, and he continued to be on that post till he sent his resignation and thereafter he was relieved from the charge. However, the petitioner had withdrawn his resignation letter before the same was accepted by the State Government. Therefore, the controversy arose as to whether the petitioner continues in service and whether he has a right to withdraw his letter of resignation before the same was accepted by the competent authority.2. It is not disputed that the petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Medical Officer, Class-11. According to para 6 of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Director of Health and Medical Services, Respondent No. 2, the resignation was required to be accepted by the Government and there was no question of accepting the same by the respondent No. 2. Unfortunately the Government has not filed any affidavit...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad Education Society Vs. Shivprasad Valjibhai Acharya
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-14-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR419
S.L. Talati, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Chamber Judge of City Civil Court (Court No. 29) passed on 30-8-1983 in Civil Suit No. 2001 of 1983.2. Plaintiff No. 1 is the primary teacher and the only question which was required to be decided was as to whether the retiring age of this primary teacher is 58 years or is 60 years. Now when this plaintiff joined the service the appellant-society had with them their own Leave Rules. Rule 29 was as under:The age of retirement for servants of the society will ordinarily be 60 years, but the Governing Body may require a medical certificate of fitness after the age of 55.Now because of this rule the retirement age of plaintiff No. 1 would have been 60 years. Now what intervened was that the Bombay Primary Education Act was passed in the year 1947 and thereafter the rules were framed under that Act and the rules came to be amended by the Bombay Primary Education (Guj. Amendment) Rules, 1978. Now Schedule-F provided as many a...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Vaishnav Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-14-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR458
S.A. Shah, J.1. The petitioner who was at the relevant time Superintendent of Central Excise at Bhavnagar challenges the order of his compulsory retirement passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise at Ahmedabad dated 21-7-1976 produced at Annexure-F, and the appellate order passed by the Government of India dated 22nd September, 1977 at Annexure-G on the ground that the same are violative of the principles of natural justice and also bad on merits.2. The short facts of this petition are as under:The petitioner was working as Superintendent of Central Excise at Bhavnagar, when he received a memorandum dated 4-11-1974 along with Articles of Charges and other relevant papers. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for three alleged delinquencies which are narrated in the order of the Collector at Annexure-F. Out of the three charges. Article III was not proved. So far as Charge-Article I is concerned the same has been proved partly to the extent of lack of devotion to duty, whereas t...
Tag this Judgment!Satishchandra Bhailalbhai Shah and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR655
S.A. Shah, J.1. The petitioners challenged the action of the Government in not granting them either the grade of trained teachers or five advance increments recommended by Desai Pay Commission. The main challenge of the petitioners is that the action of the Government is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in as much as they have been discriminately treated with Primary teachers holding Primary Teaching Certificate, though the petitioners are better qualified and competent to teach even in P.T.C. colleges.2. Petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are primary school teachers. All of them are holding the qualifications of Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.). Petitioners No. 1 and 2 had passed B.Ed., examination before January, 1976 and petitioners No. 3 and 5 had passed B.Ed., examination after January, 1976, to be precise in March, 1976. Petitioner No. 4 is the Gujarat Rajya Prathamik Shikshak Parishad which is a representative body of the Primary School Te...
Tag this Judgment!Khushaldas Vrajlal Chokshi Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-1983
Reported in: (1984)2GLR908
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. The petitioner herein has challenged the judgment and order dated 3rd March, 1981 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot whereby the learned Magistrate had ordered that the present petitioner, original accused No. 1, shall produce the scooter in dispute before the Court, further directing that the respondent No. 1 original complainant may take away the said scooter on furnishing security of Rs. 15,000/- together with solvent security.2. Mr. P. M. Thakkar, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner (original accused) has challenged the above order mainly on two grounds. Firstly that the learned Magistrate has no power in law to pass the impugned order and secondly in the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned order is contrary to law and untenable. Mr. Thakkar has urged that the impugned order could possibly be considered to have been passed under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter New Code) as there is no other provision ...
Tag this Judgment!Vithalbhai Bhailalbhai Patel Vs. T.V. Krishnamurthy and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-09-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR151
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this petition which is styled to be one under Article 226 of the Constitution and which in substance is one under Article 227 thereof the petitioner challenges an order passed by the Deputy Collector, Dabhoi in Concase No. 34 of 1976 dated 12-8-1976 and as confirmed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department on 23-3-1977, Annexures C and D respectively. By the impugned orders passed under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Fragmentation Act), the transaction regarding agricultural land bearing Section No. 49, admeasuring in area 1 acre -32 gunthas of village Nawapura, taluka Dabhoi of Baroda district has been held to be contrary to the provisions of Section 7 of the Fragmentation Act and consequently the petitioner is ordered to be evicted from the said land as per the provisions of Section 9(3) of the said Act.2. The grievance of the petitioner can be better appreciat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »