Gujarat Court November 1984 Judgments
Baroda Cattle Suppliers Association Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-30-1984
Reported in: (1985)1GLR38
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The members of the petitioner Association claim to be engaged in the business of purchasing and exporting to Bombay useless bullocks aged above 16 years. They are aggrieved by the prohibition of export of useless bullocks above the age of 16 years out of Gujarat. When the petition was filed the ban was for one year but during the pendency of the petition it has been extended by another two years.2. According to the petitioners, really there is no ban whatsoever on export of useless bullocks above the age of 16 years. Under Section 4 of Bombay Essential Commodities and Cattle (Control) Act, 1958 if the State Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing the supply, or for securing the equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, of any essential commodity or cattle, it may, by order provide (b) for regulating the maintenance, movement, supply and distribution of, or trade and commerce in cattle. Under this p...
Tag this Judgment!S. Tripathi Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-29-1984
Reported in: (1985)2GLR616; (1986)ILLJ16Guj
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. His Lordship after stating the facts narrated in the petition, further observed: *** *** *** ***2. The above Rules (Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules 1954) and particularly Rule 5 make it clear that the confidential report is mooted for the purpose of assessing the four attributes of a public service, namely, his performance, his character, his conduct and his qualities. As observed during the course of the period under report from the very nature of things also these are four conceivable heads under which an officer's performance can be assessed and adjudged. If an Officer is to be adjudged meritorious or otherwise, it would be on the basis of these four broad factors and none other. It is in consonance with common sense also. If no arbitrariness is to be allowed to have its play, if personal likes and dislikes in the assessment of the merit or otherwise of a public officer are to be avoided, the assessment of an Officer's worth has to be based on these four w...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanbhai Ramabhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-29-1984
Reported in: (1985)1GLR531
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department, refusing to grant exemption to the petitioners under Section 20 Sub-section (i) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The application was moved on two grounds, (i) that the petitioners who are the land holders wanted to utilise the land for a public purpose by enabling the co-operative society members of weaker sections of the public to put lip residential houses; (2) that they have also prayed that undue hardship would be caused to them if such exemption is not granted. The application was moved on 25th September, 1980 under the then existing guidelines which were holding the field. That application came to be rejected on 18-6-1983. The petitioners, therefore, came to this Court by way of special civil application No. 125 of 1984 and submitted amongst others that without hearing the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Jugaldas Amritlal Vs. Harilal Talakchand and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-27-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Guj88
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant (original defendant 1) against whom a decree for Rs. 10,428.06 paise has been passed on 31-7-1975 by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhavnagar, in Special Civil Suit No. 77 of 1973. Respondent 1 is the original plaintiff who filed the aforesaid suit against defendants 1 to 6 (appellant and respondents 2 to 6). Since the trial Court has passed the decree only against the appellant-defendant 1, respondent 1-plaintiff has filed Cross-objections praying for a decree against all the defendants. For the purpose of this appeal the parties will be hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff and 'the defendants'.2. Plaintiff Harilal Talakchand Shah of Bhavnagar wanted to transfer his 70 bags of cotton waste worth about Rs. 10,500/- from the factory of defendant 5 Arunodaya Mills Ltd., Morvi, to his shop at Bhavnagar. The plaintiff has alleged that on 2-12-1972 he entered into a contract with defendant 1 Jugaldas Amratlal Shah for car...
Tag this Judgment!ShabbuddIn Pannunia Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-27-1984
Reported in: 1986CriLJ149
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The petitioner is at present undergoing sentence at Sabarmati Central Prison, Ahmedabad. He has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147,148,149,324 and 326 read with Section 149, Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Sections 147 and 148, Penal Code, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and two years respectively. For the offence punishable under Section 324 he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year' and for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 149, Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years each. All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. On Mar. 6,1984, the Home Department of the State of Gujarat issued a general order in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 432, Criminal P.C whereby remissions have been granted to certain categories of prisoners who have been sentenced in the State of G...
Tag this Judgment!Gujchem Distillers India Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-26-1984
Reported in: (1985)2GLR45; (1986)ILLJ19Guj
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is a petition by one company challenging the legality, validity and constitutionality of the enquiry conducted by the respondent, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Gujarat State, under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity's sake. The question arose because of the refusal of the respondent to accord to the petitioner-company the infancy benefit under Section 16(1)(b) of the said Act.2. In order to understand the controversy, a few facts are required to be closely noted. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act Initially, it bore the name 'Sardesai Brothers Limited', which was ultimately changed to the present name Gujchem Distillers India Ltd. The petitioner has its original factory at Billimora in Valsad District and that factory, we were told at the Bar, had been started somewhere in the year 1939. The said compa...
Tag this Judgment!Filmistan Distributors (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hansaben Baldevdas Shivla ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-23-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Guj35
Mehta, J.1. This matter illustrates what injury, damage and injustice a long lasting interim injunction can do to a defendant who succeeds finally. The question that arises here is whether such injury and injustice is redressable or is without a remedy. Does our system of administration of justice administer justice or injustice. If injustice and injury results by an interim injunction obtained by a party and granted by Courts, can the aggrieved party ask for compensation on proof of direct damage suffered by it? The appellant contends that the interim injunction obtained by it had judicial sanction and, therefore, even if the appellant ultimately failed and even if any direct damage is proved to the other side, it cannot be redressed and the Court cannot give any relief.2. The learned City Civil Court Judge had held that the appellant is liable in tort of abuse of process of Court and has passed a decree against the appellant for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-with costs and interest in Civil...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Shantaram Joshi Vs. Regional Manager Bank of Maharashtra Baroda ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-23-1984
Reported in: [1985(50)FLR507]; (1985)1GLR46; (1985)ILLJ487Guj
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner is dismissed employee of the first respondent Bank. He has challenged the action of dismissal by the first respondent Bank as well as the refusal by the Central Government to refer the dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is not necessary to go into the validity or otherwise of the dismissal order in view of our decision on the second aspect. 2. The petitioner has complained that the dismissal was illegal on several grounds. He had raised the demands of reinstatement with full back wages. The same was contested by the Bank before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central) and ultimately the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) made his failure report dated 14th June, 1983 and he observed as follows : 'After protracted discussions it was found that both the parties had divergent view in the matter and therefore the conciliation proceedings were closed as having ended in failure. The workman was ready for arbitration or joint reference but ...
Tag this Judgment!Hasmukh D. Desai and Co. Vs. Bhimbhai Ranchhodji Vashi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-23-1984
Reported in: (1985)2GLR644
R.A. Mehta, J.1. These two appeals between the same parties arise from two cross suits which were heard together and disposed of by one common judgment by the trial court. The question is whether the appellants have become owners of the suit property by adverse possession. If they are right, their Civil Suit No. 307 of 1979 for declaration and injunction should have been decreed and Special Civil Suit No. 20/80 filed against them by the respondent for possession of the suit property should have been dismissed.The Record and Proceedings of both the suits were called for, the relevant documents and evidence have been referred to at the time of hearing for admission of these appeals.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondent. is the owner of the suit land in ward No. 6 of per Falia, Navsari. Adjoining to this open land there was also his land with Tabela (garage) bearing municipal No. 6/17. The respondent had filed Civil Suit No. 105/69 against the present appellants for recover...
Tag this Judgment!Sathwara Rameshkumar Dalsukhbahi and ors. Vs. Gujarat Vidyapith and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-22-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Guj142; (1985)1GLR279
P.S. Poti, C.J.1. The four appellants before us were the petitioners in the original petition and the petition having been dismissed, they have come up in appeal. They are all students in the Second Year of the M.S.W. course conducted by the Gujarat Vidyapith. There are two semesters in the Second Year. For the second year, the students are expected to study six subjects. Five of them are compulsory. In the sixth, there are three sub-groups from which it is open to the students to choose any one and these three sub-groups are: (i) Management in Agriculture and Rural Institute;(ii) Management in Personal and Public Health and Preventive in Social Medicine:(iii) Correctional Administration.The four appellants before us as well as three others had, out of these three subjects, opted for Management in Personal and Public Health and Preventive in Social Medicine. Classes were taken by one Mr. C. S. Sanon for about five days in this subject. But evidently he wanted to leave the institution i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »