Gujarat Court December 1983 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gangaben J. Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-09-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR608
S.A. Shah, J.1. The petitioner challanges the order of her removal from service, passed by the District Health Officer on 9-3-1977. produced at Annexure-F and the appellate order dated 5-12-1977 passed by the District Development Officer, dismissing her appeal.2.The facts of this petition inter alia are as under.The petitioner was appointed as mid-wife by an order dated 7-10-1961 of the Deputy Director of Public Health Services, Baroda which is produced at Annexure-A. There is no dispute that the petitioner was a State Government servant at the time of her appointment. On coming into force of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Panchayat Act') under the provisions of Section 157 the Department of Public Health and Medical Relief was transferred to the District Panchayats so that the panchayats can exercise the powers and functions and duties which are exercised by the State Government. It appears that with the transfer of Public Health and Medical Relief Depar...
Luhana Chandulal Dayalji Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-09-1983
Reported in: (1984)2GLR804
V.V. Bedarkar, J.1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar, District Junagadh, in Sessions Case No. 58 of 1980, by which he convicted Luhana Chandulal Dayalji, appellant (original accused No. 3) of Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 1981, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to sufer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, and in default of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further one month. He, however, acquitted Aher Parbat Ala (original accused No. 1) and Mer Mulu Munja alias Choti (original accused No. 2) for the offences with which they were charged. Original accused No. 3 Luhana Chandulal Dayaiji has filed Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 1931 against the order of conviction and sentence passed against him, while the State has filed Criminal Appeal No. 431 against the order of acquittal passed in favour of original accused No....
Swastik Textiles Engineers P. Ltd. Vs. Rajansingh Santsingh and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-06-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR470; (1984)IILLJ97Guj
Mankad, J.1. The only question which we are called upon to answer in this petition filed by the petitioner-employer under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is whether the Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') was justified in directing the petitioner to pay full back wages for the period from August 8 to October 13, 1977 to 16 complainants who had filed complainants under S. 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Petitioner is an engineering establishment employing about 200 workmen. There were many industrial disputes between the petitioner and its workmen which were pending adjudication in the Tribunal. The workmen decided to go on strike notice dated July 5, 1977, in which it was stated that the workmen would go on strike with effect from July 26, 1977. The workmen went on strike on July 26, 1977. The strike peaceful and practically all the workmen joined it. It is the case of the petitioner that after the w...
N.M. Mandalia Vs. Bhavnagar Municipality
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-06-1983
Reported in: (1984)2GLR837
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. By an order dated 24/25th November 1975, Annexure 'A', the petitioner was appointed on probation as a Legal-cwm-Labour Officer in the scale of Rs. 223-10-323-20-403-29-461 plus allowances as admissible under the rules initially for a period of three months. The probation period was extended from time to time thereafter. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was confirmed in due course but that is a matter of controversy which is not required to be adjudicated upon for the disposal of this petition.2. It appears that during the course of service the petitioner is alleged to have misconducted himself. The first show cause notice was issued on 27th December 1977. The second and the third show cause notices were issued on 30th December 1977. To all these three show cause notices, the petitioner replied on 31st December 1977 denying all the allegations made against him. Thereupon the management decided to institute a departmental inquiry against him and served him...
State of Gujarat Vs. Kishorchandra Ajitrai Chhaya
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-03-1983
Reported in: 1985CriLJ392
M.B. Shah, J.1. In this revision application the short question for decision is whether the sanction to prosecute the Chief Officer of the Mangrol Municipality granted by Resolution No. 29 dt. 30th July 1982 passed in the ordinary general meeting of Mangrol Municipality is a valid sanction to prosecute Under Section 6(l)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the 'Corruption Act'. Under Section 6(l)(c) it has been provided that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable Under Section 161 or Section 164 or Section 165 of the Penal Code or Under Section 5 of the Corruption Act alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction of the authority competent to remove him from his office.2. The question in the present case is that the respondent, who was the Chief Officer of the Mangrol Municipality was sought to be prosecuted for the alleged offence under the Corruption Act and Under Section 161 of the Penal Cod...
Govindbhai Parshottamdas Patel and ors. Vs. New Shorrock Mills, Nadiad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-02-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Guj182; (1984)1GLR156
Ravani, J.1. A label or the substance? Which one of them determines the real nature of relationship between the parties in a suit where the plaintiff has claimed recovery of possession of the premises? After answering the aforesaid question we are faced with the question, can an authority invested with two different jurisdictions exercise both the jurisdictions simultaneously in one and the same proceeding, notwithstanding the fact that the original forum may be different and the procedure laid down in respect of exercise of both the jurisdictions may also be entirely different? Putting it in simple form, can you ride two horses together simultaneously notwithstanding the fact that the starting point as well as the tracts charted out for onward journey by both the horses are distinct and separate? The aforesaid questions arise in the backdrop of the following facts and circumstances:2. The respondent-original plaintiff filed a suit in the court of Civil Judge (JD), Nadiad, for recovery...
Kamlaben Wd/O. Deceased Kantilal Damodardas and ors. Vs. Ramniklal Dam ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-01-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR514
S.L. Talati, J.1. The petitioners challenge by this petition the order passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Botad in Regular Civil Suit No. 2 of 1981 which is passed on an application Exh. 33 on 24-8-1983.2. In order to appreciate the entire matter full facts are required to be stated.3. A Regular Civil Suit was presented in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) at Botad on 5-1-1981. The names of the plaintiffs shown in the plaint were as under:(1) Ramniklal Damodardas, and(2) Kantilal Damodardas.This Ramanikial Damodardas is opponent No. 3 in this petition. It appears that Kantilal Damodardas had signed the plaint on 30-11-1980. For one reason or the other the plaint came to be presemed by the advocate of the plaintiffs on 5-1-1981. The suit was numbered as Regular Civil Suit No. 2 of 1981. Now it appears that this Kantilal Damodardas expired on 30-11-1980. The death certificate is produced at mark 15/1. This would mean that Kantilal Damodardas expired after signing the plaint on 30-11-1980. H...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›