Gujarat Court April 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.
Vajir Nagji Kesuaraji Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR47
S.L. Talati, J.1. The appellant was original accused in Sessions Case No. 77 of 1979 before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha Palanpur. He has challenged his order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur, on 8-2-1980 for an offence Under Section 302 I.P.C. He has been sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. It is not necessary in this case to go into all the details as most of the facts are stated in the judgment. However, prosecution case in short was that the deceased Krushnasing Gagsing Rathod was serving as an Inspector in Banaskantha District Central Co-operative Bank Limited at Deodar, while the appellant was a peon in that Bank. The incident had happened on 17-6-1979 at about 9-00 p.m. and the dead body of the deceased was ultimately found in the field of Ghanchi Baba Chuna. Post-mortem report revealed that there were as many as 33 incised wounds inflicted on different parts of the body and the death...
State and anr. Vs. B.C. Dwivedi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-1983
Reported in: (1983)2GLR1315
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The State Government and the Commissioner of Labour by this Letters Patent Appeal seek to challenge the interim order dated December 29,1982 made by this Court (Coram: P.D. Desai, J.) in Special Civil Application No. 5214 of 1982 while issuing Rule nisi. The learned Single Judge directed the respondents of the said special civil application to reinstate the petitioner-respondent herein in service forthwith and to permit him to report to duty with effect from opening of the office hours on December 30, 1982, and to give him appropriate posting upon his so reporting for duty. This direction was given in light of the similar direction being given by Supreme Court in Corporation of the City of Nagpur v. Ramchandra and Ors. : (1981)IILLJ6SC . It should be recalled at this stage that the Deputy Secretary, Labour and Employment Department of the State of Gujarat has by his order of September 13, 1980 suspended the original petitioner pursuant to his being trapped in the Anti-...
Dr. Himanshu Purshottamdas Bavishi and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-1983
Reported in: (1983)2GLR1414
B.K. Mehta, J.1. Since the aforesaid two Special Civil Applications challenge the Rules for preparation of Merit List for admission to the Post-Graduate Medical Courses (hereinafter described as 'the Registration Rules') enacted by the Gujarat University in pursuance of the writ issued by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 3704 of 1982 Dr. Vikram K. Shah v. State of Guj. 24(1) G.L.R. 551 the judgment in which (Per N. H. Bhatt, J.) has been also questioned in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal, raising the common questions of law and fact, we propose to dispose of all the three matters by this common judgment.2. We will refer to the contesting parties in these matters by their respective position in reference to the Letters Patent Appeal.3. It is necessary to set out the material facts so as to appreciate the three dimensional dispute in proper perspective.4. In order to provide for proper training in basic medical sciences either related to the disciplines concerned for M. D....
Dharamshi Polabhai Vs. Champaklal Vashram and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-05-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Guj217; (1983)2GLR1280
Majmudar, J. 1. The petitioner who is original responent 1 in the main first appeal and who was original defendant 1 in Special Civil Suit No. 37 of 1971 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajkot, has requested this court by way of the present application to decide as a preliminary point the question regarding the maintainability of the first appeal. Earlier, a Division Bench of this court had directed on 23-2-1982 that this application be heard along with the main appeal. But subsequently, a later Division Bench of this court directed that this application be taken up for consideration earlier and the learned advocates of both the sides are agreed to this position and that is how this application reached final hearing before us yesterday. 2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, centering round the maintainability of the first appeal, it will be necessary to quickly glance through a few relevant facts leading to the present litigation between ...
Vipinbhai R. Parekh Vs. General Manager Western Railway, Bombay
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-04-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Guj41; (1983)2GLR1347
1. The contract between the parties. which contained arbitration clause. was brought to an end by the plaintiff. The other side acted upon the representations made by the plaintiff in his letters. Both the sides treated the contract as concluded anti having been terminated. Even in such a situation. much time after the termination of the contract. can a dispute which may fall within the scope of arbitration clause. be referred to an arbitrator as claimed by the plaintiff? This is the question which is renuirea to be answered in this first appeal filed by the original plaintiff who had filed an application under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act and whose application has been rejected by the trial Court.2. The facts in brief leading to this appeal are as follows:The Railway Administration invited tenders some time in April 1973 for. the construction work for building additional accommodation in Railway Staff College at Baroda. The plaintiff-am)ellant here-! in filled in the tender and the sa...
The Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition), G.i.D.C., Ahmedabad Vs ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-01-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Guj208; (1984)2GLR834
Shah, J.1-5. x x x x x6. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellant was not able to point out any defect or error of the learned Assistant Judge in appreciating the evidence. The learned Assistant Judge has considered the particulars of the sale instances and the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants. The following table would show the sale instances relied upon by the claimants :Sr. No.Ex. No.Particulars of lands.Date ofSale allotment or sec. 4Notification.Name ofallotteePriceper sq. yd/sq. mt.1.17Plot No. 85 B G'DC Estate14.11.73Jagdish Oil & Oake Industries.Rs. 20. 0 per sq. mt.2.18Plot No. 180 of GIDO22.9.T8M/s. Bhagwati IndustriesRs. 11.25 per sq. yd.3.19Plot No. 181/1of GIDO88.8.78M/s. Bhagwati Industries.Re. 15.00 per sq. yd:4.23Consent award of lands of villageNaroda Hanspura1-8-68G.I. P.O.Rs. 5/- per yd. or Rs. 6/- per sq. mt.The learned Judge has not relied upon sale instances which are at S. Nos. 1 to 3, mainly on the ground t...
Ansarali Rakshak Vs. Union of India (Uoi), W. Rly. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-01-1983
Reported in: (1983)2GLR971
D.C. Gheewala, J.1. As these two petitions involve an identical question and as they are challenging the proceedings arising from the same incident, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The petitioners were working as Rakshaks in the Railway Protection Force under the Respondents at Kankaria loco-shed. They were charge-sheeted under Rule 44 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 by the Respondent No. 3 on an allegation that they had failed to prevent and detect the theft of 20 kgs. of steam coal and that they also failed to prevent the entry of a girl who had entered the shed with an intention to steal and who was detected in connection with the said offence of coal theft, which occurred during the duty-bit and duty hours of the petitioners. This incident took place on 26-8-1979. Both the petitioners were charge-sheeted on 18-9-1979. On 19-4-1980, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioners were not proved. He, therefo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›