Gujarat Court April 1985 Judgments
ismail Mahmmed Shekh Vs. Sub-divisional Magistrate and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-30-1985
Reported in: (1985)2GLR910
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dabhoi on June 25, 1984 directing the petitioner to be externed as per the provisions of Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 from the city of Vadodara and the contiguous districts of Vadodara, Bharuch, Panchmahals and Kheda for a period of one year. He has also challenged the appellate order passed by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department (Special), Government of Gujarat, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the impugned externment order under Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act.2. Before we mention the main grievance voiced by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner against the impugned order, it is necessary to set out relevant introductory facts. The petitioner is a permanent resident of village Amroli in Nasvadi Taluka of Vadodara District. He is having agricultural land on the outskirts of the said village. T...
Tag this Judgment!Jani Nautamlal Venishankar, Wadhwan Vs. Vivekanand Co-operative Housin ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-29-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Guj162; (1985)2GLR1264
Majmudar, J.1. The present first appeal has been filed by the original defendant No. 3 against whom special civil suit No. 27 of 1972 was filed in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Surendranagar. Respondent No. 1 society was the plaintiff and respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were original defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 respectively. The said suit was filed for recovering Rs. 51,296.45 as principal amount and Rs. 12,054.55 as interest at this rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till realization from the concerned defendants including the present appellant defendant No. 3. The suit came to be decreed by the learned trial Judge who held respondent No. 1 society plaintiff to be entitled to Rs. 57,300/with proportionate interest and. cost on Rs. 51,296/- at the rate of 6% per annum from all the defendants jointly and severally. The present appellant original defendant No. 3 being aggrieved by the said decree has come in appeal before this Court. So far as other defendants...
Tag this Judgment!Orient Middle East Lines Ltd. and anr. Vs. Brace Transport Corporation ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-19-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Guj62; (1986)1GLR77
ORDER1. This Revision Application raises an interesting question of law as regards the jurisdiction of Courts in India to entertain an application for filing a foreign award under section 3 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Foreign Awards Act' for the sake of brevity). The petitioners of this Revision Application were respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in Arbitration Petition No. 1 of 1984, while respondent No. 1 in this Revision Application was the petitioner in that arbitration petition. Respondent No. 2 in this Revision Application was respondent No. 3, while respondent No. 3 in this Revision Application was respondent No. 4 in the Arbitration petition. For the sake of convenience, I shall refer to the respective parties by their respective positions in the original Arbitration Petition No. 1 of 1984.2. The undisputed facts leading to the filing of this Revision Application may be briefly stated as follows: -M/s. Brace Transpo...
Tag this Judgment!Arunodaya Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-1985
Reported in: 1985(6)ECC217; 1985(21)ELT390(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. Rule. Mr. S. D. Shah waives service of Rule.The Petitioner company which is a textile manufacturing company seeks to challenge by this Petition the order of the second Respondent dated February 23, 1985 raising three demands in the sums of Rs. 7,64,330.71 for the period from July, 1983 to January, 1984, Rs. 2,78,677.92 for the period from November 15, 1983 to June, 1984 and Rs. 1,84,504.18 for the period from July, 1984 to September 1984, towards the excise duty, under Tariff Item No. 18-III(ii). The grievance of the Petitioner company is that the yarn which it is spinning has predominant contents of man-made fibres of cellulosic origin and the balance comprises of non-cellulosic wastes. The case of the department is that the balance comprises of man-made fibre of non-cellulosic origin. This is in short the dispute between the parties. At the instance of the Petitioner company, reports from the Chemical Analyser, Kandla as well as Chief Chemist, New Delhi have been obt...
Tag this Judgment!National Dairy Development Board Vs. National Dairy Development Board ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-1985
Reported in: [1986(52)FLR609]; (1985)2GLR1415; (1986)ILLJ456Guj
Majmudar, J.1. In this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, which is, in substance, one under Art. 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner National Dairy Development Board has sought intervention of this Court for quashing and setting aside the award. Part-I dated 4th May, 1984 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in Reference (I.T. No. 645 of 1980. The industrial dispute between the petition Board and its workmen represented by the respondent Union came to be referred for adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, by the appropriate Government under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said dispute pertained to the demand of the workmen for payment of the bonus for the year 1979-80 at 20%. The contention of the petitioner Board was that it is not liable to pay any bonus to the workmen and that the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, were not applicable to the petitioner Board in view of S. 32(iv) as well as S. 32(v...
Tag this Judgment!Baroda Municipal Corporation and anr. Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR185
R.C. Mankad, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 Baroda Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') is a Corporation constituted under Section 5 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. Petitioner No. 2 is its Commissioner. Respondent Gujarat Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') is constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1848 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Supply Act'). Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the revision of grid tariff by the Board under notice dated February 9, 1984 given to five licensees including the Corporation in the State of Gujarat. By the said notice, the Board intimated to all the licenses that the Board had decided to revise the existing grid tariff applicable to the generating and distributing licensees served by the Board in the State of Gujarat as per Appendix I and Appendix II attached to the said notice and that the said revised grid tariff would be made applicable for s...
Tag this Judgment!New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Amratlal Nathalal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-04-1985
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC174
D.C. Gheewala, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol in claim petition No. 289/78. The respondent No. 1 was injured in a motor accident and had sustained injuries which according to him resulted in permanent partial disability to the extent of 8%. He therefore, filed a claim petition for claiming Rs. 35,000/- by way of compensation. When the accident had taken place the injured-respondent was traveling in truck no. G.T.G. 1588.2. After appreciating the evidence the learned tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- comprising of Rs. 5.000/- by way of pain, shock and suffering and medical expenses and Rs. 5,000/- by way a. lumpsum for future economical loss. Being aggrieved by the said order the Insurance Company i.e. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. carried the matter before this Court by way of the present appeal. The claimant being aggrieved by the meagerness of the amount filed cross...
Tag this Judgment!Dharamji Fataji Head Constable Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-04-1985
Reported in: (1985)2GLR888
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The appellant who is a Police Constable instituted a Civil suit being Civil Suit No. 4248 of 1984 on October 18, 1984 in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, and challenged the legality and validity of the show cause notice of proposed punishment of dismissal from service. He also prayed for interim relief by taking out notice of motion. The appellant plaintiff did not give necessary particulars with regard to the charges levelled and held proved against him at the conclusion of the departmental inquiry. As it has transpired later on, the charge against him was that he aided and abetted one Police Constable Babubhai in taking bribe of Rs. 500/- from one Bhagwandas. For this purpose he made false panchnama and took signature of said Bhagwandas on blank paper. Without mentioning these particulars in the pleadings, the plaintiff obtained interim order against the department and by an order of injunction issued by the Court, the Department was restrained from dismissing the p...
Tag this Judgment!S.D. Dayal Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-02-1985
Reported in: (1985)2GLR1043
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner a clerk in a technical institute under the Director of Technical Education, has prayed for the following relief; 'directing the respondents to release the petitioner's increments as from 1-5-76 the date on which he completed 12 years' continuous service' He joined the clerical post on 2nd May, 1964 and he completed 12 years of continuous service on 1st May, 1976. However, he had not passed the required departmental examination which he was required to pass within a period of two years from the date on which he joined that appointment. Therefore, his increments have been withheld. On expiry of 12 years of continuous service he requested for release of increments. However, that request was turned down. He also made representations to the Director of Technical Education. However, he did not get any reply or justice and, therefore, ultimately he filed this petition.2. In the affidavit in reply in paras 5.8 and 11 a stand has been taken that it is discretiona...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›