Gujarat Court January 1986 Judgments
Broach Municipality Vs. Raiben Chimanlal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-29-1986
Reported in: 1987ACJ698; [1987(54)FLR93]; (1986)2GLR129; (1993)IIILLJ90Guj
Ravani, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in Application No. 22 of 1980 directing the appellant-Municipality to pay an amount of Rs. 21,600/- as compensation to the dependents, of deceased workman.2. The workman was employed as a Driver and he was in service of the Municipality since the year 1951. On Feb. 5, 1980, when he was on duty, he received heart attack at about 2 p.m. and he was taken to hospital by a co-worker named Jadavbhai. The record of the Civil Hospital has been produced in the case and the staff of the Civil Hospital has also been examined in the case. This evidence shows that the deceased was taken to the Civil Hospital where he was given only preliminary treatment. Further treatment could not be given because cardiac machine was not available. As per the case of the dependents of the workmen, from the Civil Hospital the deceased was straight taken to Sevashram Hospital while as per the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Vs. Aminbhai Pirmohomad Ma ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-1986
Reported in: [1989]65CompCas148(Guj); (1986)2GLR234
J.P. Desai, J.1. This appeal filed by the insurance company in Motor Vehicle Claim Petition No 9 of 1976 is against that part of the award by which the insurance company as the insurer of the motor cycle is saddled with liability to the extend of Rs 28,500. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the claim petition may be briefly stated as follows : On February 11, 1975, at about 10 p.m., one motor cycle driven and owned by one Dwarkadas Bhagwanji Bhagat was proceeding on the Billimora-Chikhali road. It was going from Billimora to Chikhali, i.e., from west to east. One autorickshaw driven by one Amin Pirmohomad which was also insured with the same insurance company was proceeding from Chikhali to Billimora, i.e, from east to west. There was a collision between the two vehicles on the said road. Dwarkadas who was driving the motor cycle was injured in this incident, while Babubhai Dahyabhai, who was a pillion rider, was also injured in this incident and he succumbed to the injuries in the...
Tag this Judgment!Chemicoat Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-1986
Reported in: 1986(7)ECC236; 1986(25)ELT528(Guj)
J.P. Desai, J.1. These two appeals, one filed by the original plaintiff and the other filed by the original defendant, arise out of the same judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vadodara in Special Civil Suit No. 321 of 1973 whereby he partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff, these appeals are, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The facts leading to the filing of these two appeals may be briefly stated as follows : -The plaintiff is carrying on the business of manufacturing metallised yarn at Kalki Road, Atladara, District Vadodara. The excise authorities at Vadodara started levying and collecting duty on metallic (metallized) yarn under tariff item No. 18 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 from 19th October, 1968. They issued demand notice for the period from 1st December, 1965 to 18th October, 1968. The plaintiff, therefore, filed a special civil application in this court, being Speci...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Razak Gulam Nabi Mansuri Vs. Managing Trustees of Timba Masjid, ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-1986
Reported in: (1986)1GLR633
R.A. Mehta, J.1. This revision by the original defendant-tenant arises from orders striking off defence for not complying with the condition of depositing the amount of interim standard rent within the time fixed by the trial court. Subsequent application by the tenant to allow him to appear in and defend the suit was also rejected. The District Court has also confirmed that order. While confirming that order the District Court has found that 'true that new tenant has deposited all the arrears in the court as per pursis filed on 7-2-83 along with receipt No. 889741 having paid Rs. 2460.00/-' yet it has confirmed the order of the trial court observing 'law does not permit the lower court under Section 11(4) of the Bombay Rent Act to grant or not to grant permission'. This order is challenged in this Revision Application.2. Section 11(4) of the Rent Act, material part, reads as under:.the court may also direct that if the tenant fails to comply with any such order within such time as may...
Tag this Judgment!Anopsinh Jatubha Vs. V.K. Gupta, Dist. Police Officer and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-23-1986
Reported in: (1986)1GLR153; (1986)2GLR1; (1994)IIILLJ839Guj
Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. These two Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the oral judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of our High Court in Special Civil Application Nos. 1329 and 1330 of 1984. The short facts of the cases are that these two appellants were appointed as temporary constables in November 1983 and they were on probation. They underwent some departmental training and had to appear at the departmental examinations. They appeared at two of the examinations and on 20th February, 1984, it is alleged that they were found indulging in unfair practice at the examination by copying from a chit which was recovered from them during the examination in the presence of another candidate and the Drill Instructor who was assisting the Supervisors. They were not allowed to further appear in the examinations and their services came to be terminated by the impugned order dated 2.3.1984. The order states that as their services are not required by the Department and that as the appointment...
Tag this Judgment!Manharlal Nenshi Vs. Meena Agencies
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-23-1986
Reported in: (1986)2GLR1079
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. Rule. Mr. Jayant M. Patel appears and waives service for the opponent.2. This is a gross case which shows how an unscrupulous landlord can dupe his tenant to part with possession on the pretext that he will repair and renovate the tenanted premises within a specified time and subsequently keep the tenant out indefinitely under one pretext or the other. The petitioner herein is the landlord who obtained possession from the respondent-tenant after obtaining a consent decree in the suit filed by the respondent-tenant, whereby the respondent had to hand over vacant possession of the suit shop to the petitioner landlord and pay him a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as and by way of the cost for the repairs and renovation to be completed within a period of three months from the date of the tenant handing over possession to the landlord. Accordingly the respondent-tenant handed over vacant possession of the suit shop to the petitioner-landlord on 8-8-1985. He also paid by cheque a sum ...
Tag this Judgment!indotex Machinery Works Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-1986
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC296; 1986LC698(Gujarat)
Mehta, J.1. The petitioner-firm has moved this court for appropriate writs, orders and directions for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated March 4, 1985 and July 15, 1985 passed by the third respondent-tribunal and for direction to the tribunal to dispense with the deposit of the excise duty of Rs. 2,02,116.49 Ps. during the pendency of the appeal. 2. The question involved in this petition is whether the value of the articles purchased and supplied by the petitioner to its customers along with other machinery parts manufactured by the petitioner should or should not be included in the value of products sold for purposes of the excise duty under tariff item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as no processing or manufacturing activity, not even assembling, was done by the petitioner on such bought out articles and they were supplied to the customers in the same form in which they were purchased by the petitioner, and therefore, did not beco...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanshyam Kisan Borikar Vs. L.D. Engineering College and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Guj83
ORDER1. The petitioner is serving as Executive Engineer in the Post and Telegraphs Department of the Union of India. He originally belonged to State of Maharashtra in relation to which his caste/community, i.e. Halba, has been recognised as Scheduled Tribe (ST). There is no dispute with regard to the fact that Halba caste/community has been recognised as ST in relation to the State of Maharashtra since the year 1956, if not earlier. While the petitioner was serving at Bombay, his daughter got admission in medical course on reserved seats for ST candidates. The petitioner was, in the course of his service, transferred from Bombay to Ahmedabad sometime in the year 1978. His son named Vinay kumar G. Borikar, has passed the qualifying examination i.e. XII Std. HSC examination, held by the Gujarat Secondary Education Board, Gandhinagar. It is also an undisputed fact that the petitioner's son has secured 267 marks out of 450 marks. For the purpose of consideration of merits in medical and, e...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaybir Alias Abbal Dada Devisinh Rajput Vs. I.S. Shethi, Police Supe ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-1986
Reported in: (1986)2GLR841
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. The petitioner has come forward with the present Special Criminal Application to quash the notice issued for externment, which is Annexure 'A' to the petition, the order passed by the externing authority externing the petitioner, which is Annexure 'B' to the petition and the order passed in appeal confirming the externment order which is Annexure 'C' to the petition. The petitioner has been externed from the area under the jurisdiction of Ahmedabad Police Commissioner and its contiguous Ahmedabad Rural, Gandhinagar, Kheda and Mehsana Districts for a period of two years. The Superintendent of Police, 'C Division, Ahmedabad City issued notice under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act regarding externment of the petitioner under Section 56(b) of the said Act stating that the petitioner is a dangerous and a fierce person and commits acts of force at Saraspur Potalia Talav, Dhabavali Chawl's corner, near Anil Starch Mill, Corner of Vire Bhagat's Chawl, Corner of ...
Tag this Judgment!Mukesh Gopaldas Patel Vs. A.i. Saiyed and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-15-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ667; (1986)2GLR14
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of1 the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is ordered' to be externed from the limits of Ahmedabad City and Ahmedabad Rural for a period of one year as directed by the Appellate Authority, has sought intervention of this Court seeking reversal of that order.2. The few facts leading to this petition are required to be noted at the outset.3. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 25th Jan. 1984 by the 1st respondent-Deputy Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City, calling upon him to show cause, Under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act as to why he should not be externed from Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad Rural, Gandhinagar, Kheda and Mehsana Districts for a period of two years. Various allegations were made against him in the said notice. In response to the notice issued to him, the petitioner showed cause, filed his written reply and examined 50 witnesses in defence. The Competent Authority, after prolonged enquiry, came to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »