Gujarat Court January 1986 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.
Chitra Publicity Co. Vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedaba ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-15-1986
Reported in: (1986)2GLR1049
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Having been forced to get out unceremoniously from one gate (Special Civil Application in High Court), the appellant herein, a firm dealing in publicity business, has knocked another gate (Civil Suit in City Civil Court) and shorn of technical niceties, in substance, it prays 'whether the defendant-Corporation is willing or not permit me to be its guest', that is to say, permit to perform the alleged contract. It appears that the defendant-Corporation would probably be not unhappy if the Court grants permission but of its own it does not seem to be willing to take this decision. In this situation should the Court help the plaintiff?2. The appellant-original plaintiff filed suit being Civil Suit No. 2371 of 1985 in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, inter alia, praying that Resolution dated June 29, 1984, passed by the Municipal Corporation be declared illegal and void. By this Resolution the Corporation resolved to reduce the period of the proposed, contract from 5 year...
Manju Singh Vs. the Dean, B.J. Medical College and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-13-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Guj175; (1986)2GLR1147
ORDER1. Petitioner who has passed Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education. New Delhi in March 1985, has filed this petition, challenging the decision of the Selection Committee refusing, her admission to the First M. B. B. S. course on a seat reserved for scheduled castes on the ground that she does not belong to scheduled caste of Gujarat.2. Petitioner is daughter of a Central Government servant who is at present Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer of Western Railway stationed at Rajkot. Petitioner's father was transferred to Rajkot on Jan 15. 1982. On the transfer of her father to Rajkot, petitioner joined Kendriya Vidyalaya (Central School) at Rajkot. She passed Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination held by the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi in March 1983 securing 65 per cent marks from the said school. She sought admission to M. B. B. S. course by making application to the Selection Commissio...
State of Gujarat Vs. Mangaldas Kanchanlal Rana
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-10-1986
Reported in: (1986)2GLR1400
D.H. Shukla, J.1. The present contemner, Mangaldas Kanchanlal Rana, partner of M/s. G.M. Rana, a registered partnership firm, residing at Sankheda, District Baroda, preferred Civil Revision Application No. 902 of 1984 in this Court, challenging the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Sankheda, below Exh. 60 in Regular Civil Suit No. 271 of 1982, Exh. 60 in Regular Civil Suit No. 271 of 1982 appears to be an application filed by the contemner to amend his reply, Exh. 32, which was given with reference to application, Exh. 13. The trial Court was of the view that the reply, Exh. 32, was given after the stage of filing the reply. Hence, Exh. 32 was not taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding application, Exh. 13. Exh. 13 was, in fact, already decided on 10-3-1983 by the predecessor of the trial Judge concerned. Hence, the application, Exh. 60, dt. 30-4-1984, for the amendment of the reply, Exh. 32, was dismissed. Having been aggrieved by the aforesaid order, rejec...
Babu Kishan Kahar Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-09-1986
Reported in: (1986)1GLR553
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. The petitioner has come forward with this Special Criminal Application for issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to declare that the orders of externment, Annexures B and C are illegal, not and void and to set aside the same. Superintendent of Police, Baroda Division, Baroda, who is the externing authority, issued show cause notice under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act to the petitioner herein stating that he has committed the following offences:(1) You are head-strong man and are threatening the persons passing through Pani Gate and Haran-Khana Road and taking money from them. You are also threatening them to kill them.(2) You are looting the money from the Shopholders and Galawala at the point of knife. You give them threats to kill in case they file the complaint in the police.(3) You tell the people residing in the surrounding area of Haran-Khana Road to put your illicit liquor in their houses and on their refusing to do so you gi...
State of Gujarat Vs. Savabhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-06-1986
Reported in: [1989]65CompCas99(Guj); (1986)1GLR670
Mehta, J.1.This group of revision applications by the State is directed against the order regarding court fees payable by an indigent person in a motor accident case. All these revision applications involve a common question and they are directed against a common judgment. 2. The question is what is the amount of court fees payable by an indigent person when he partly succeeded in a motor accident claim case. Is the court fee payable one-half of the ad valorem court fees payable on the amount claimed? Or is the court fee payable only on the amount awarded, when the former one is higher than the latter? 3. In each of these cases, the amount claimed was between 20 and 50 thousand rupees and the amount awarded is between Rs. 2,700 and Rs. 11,950. Each of the indigent claimants has now paid full court fees on the awarded amount. However, that amount is less than the amount of one-half of the court fees payable on the original claim. Therefore, according to the Inspecting Officer of Court F...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gordhanbhai Ambalal Barot and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-06-1986
Reported in: I(1986)ACC346; 1986ACJ514; [1987]62CompCas259(Guj); (1986)1GLR700
Shukla, J.1. The appellant, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., has challenged by this appeal the judgment and final order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No.1 ,Ahmedabad (Rural), Narol, dated March 26, 1979, whereby the learned Tribunal has directed the opponents to pay to respondent No. 1, original applicant, Gordhanbhai Ambalal Barot, a sum of Rs. 78,600 together with running interest thereon at 6 per cent. per annum from the date of the filling of the application till payment or realisation. 2. Mr. R. H. Mehta, the learned advocate for the appellant , raised before us a sole issue as to whether the liability of the appellant was not limited only to the extent of Rs. 50,000 and that if it was so, the Tribunal has erred in making it liable , along with other respondents , to the total extent of Rs. 78,600 with interest , etc. The submission of Mr. Mehta is that the Tribunal has erred in not recognising the concerned vehicle, bearing registration No. 2472, as a goods vehicle, as ...
Chiman Surakhia Vasava Vs. Ahmed Musa Ustad and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-06-1986
Reported in: II(1986)ACC9; 1987ACJ161; [1987(54)FLR85]; (1986)2GLR1083; (1993)IIILLJ431Guj
Ravani, J. 1. This appeal is filed by an injured workman, who as a result of the decision given by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has become an employee without there being an employer. Such is the astounding result brought about by the learned Commissioner by taking hyper-technical view and by following the strict principles of rules of pleadings and Evidence Act which arc not applicable to the cases under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.2. The learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bharuch, (the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, who is exofficio Commissioner) has rejected the application of the injured workman for compensation solely on the ground that there was no sufficient proof to show that the workman was employed either by respondent No. 1 truck owner or respondent No. 3 quarry owner. On January 6, 1983 when the workman was engaged in lifting the stones from the quarry belonging to respondent No. 3 and filling the stones in the truck belongin...
Harijan Mahendrakumar Budharam Vs. B.J. Medical College and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-06-1986
Reported in: (1987)1GLR175
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The guidelines are for the purposes of guidance and to smoothen the way in implementing the relevant statutory provisions. The guidelines cannot be read so as to create confusion and obstacles. If the guidelines issued with regard to the implementation of reservation policy are read as contended by the respondent-authorities, the same would lead to confusion and absurd results.2. Now the facts in brief.The petitioner belongs to Chamar caste community which is recognised as a Scheduled Caste (SC) in relation to the State of Gujarat as in relation to the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner passed the qualifying examination i.e. Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC) examination, of the Gujarat Secondary Education Board held in the current year. Thereafter he sought admission in first MBBS course at the Government Medical College in the State of Gujarat. He claimed benefit of reserved seats for Scheduled Caste. He is denied the benefit of being considered as a candidate belon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›