Gujarat Court June 1987 Judgments
Dineshkumar Himatlal Nimavat Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-30-1987
Reported in: (1987)2GLR1146
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. In this Revision Application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30th April 1987, passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Jamnagar, allowing the appeal of the present respondents, State of Gujarat and Another, setting aside the judgment and order dated 7-10-1986 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Jamnagar. It is the petitioner's case that he has been serving as work-charge employee since 1st April, 1981. According to him, he has been given employment for 28 or 29 days every month for a period of about four years with the artificial breaks of one or two days between the two periods of 28 or 29 days. He has stated that the appointment orders were ususlly given to him long after the work commenced and ended for those periods of 28 or 29 days. Now his services are sought to be terminated. Hence, he filed the present suit to obtain injunction restraining the respondents from terminating his service. The learned trial Judge granted the inter...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Director, Esic, Ahmedabad Vs. Batulbibi and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-29-1987
Reported in: (1987)2GLR1099; (1988)IILLJ29Guj
1. The appellant, the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad, is dissatisfied and aggrieved by the judgment dated 21st March 1980, rendered by the Judge, Employees' Insurance Court, Ahmedabad, in Application (ESI) No. 42 of 1978, whereby the learned Judge held that : 'The applicants are the dependents of the deceased Haiderkhan Mirkhan, and entitled to claim dependents' benefits payable under the Act and Regulations thereunder to these dependents which the opponents do pay. The opponent to pay to the applicants cost of this application which is quantified at Rs. 80/- and bear that of its own.' 2. The short facts involved in this appeal are as under : The respondents herein, the original applicants, are Batulbibi, widow of Haiderkhan Mirkhan, and Islam Haiderkhan, having been the minor son of the deceased. The deceased Haiderkhan Mirkhan was an employee in Nagri Mills Co. Ltd., working in its Cloth Department as a Press Coolie. It is alleged th...
Tag this Judgment!Chairman, Ongc and anr. Vs. R.A. Parmar and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-19-1987
Reported in: (1987)2GLR925; (1988)ILLJ331Guj
Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. Rule Mr. A. K. Clerk waives service of the Rule for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The Chairman, Oil & Natural Gas Commission, has come forward with the Special Civil Application to issue appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calling for the records and proceedings of Reference (ITC) No. 13 of 1985 from the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad and, after perusing the legality and propriety thereof, to quash and set aside the award dated 12th February 1987, which is Annexure 'A' to the Special Civil Application. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad gave an award in Reference (ITC) No. 13 of 1985 to the following effect : 'The reference is allowed. Shri R. A. Parmar, Assistant Gr. II, should be absorbed in the Accounts Wing and his seniority is to be fixed in that Wing considering his entire service in the Administrative Wing. He should be placed above Mr. Dave. In consequence, his promotionary dates be so adj...
Tag this Judgment!Mafatlal Damodardas Parekh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-1987
Reported in: 1987(14)ECC217; 1987(31)ELT891(Guj)
Majumdar, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has brought in challenge the order at Annexure 'J' dated 2/5-7-1977 passed by the first respondent - Union of India in exercise of its powers under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. In exercise of its power aforesaid the Government of India had suo motu initiated review proceedings seeking to review the order in appeal passed by the appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay on 13-4-1976. The appellate Collector of Customs had set aside the imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on the petitioner. The first respondent felt that the said order was erroneous and was required to be reviewed. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why the order of the appellate Collector of Customs should not be annulled. The petitioner showed cause. Ultimately, he impugned order was passed by the first respondent annulling the appellate order of the...
Tag this Judgment!Khushaliben Ashumal Variani and ors. Vs. Manilal Prabhudas Chauhan and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-1987
Reported in: II(1987)ACC290
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. On the afternoon of 27th January 1980 on the Tarapur-Galiyana State Highway, a head on collision took place between a Fiat Car GJP 1403 and a motor truck GTG 3375 resulting in the death of Ashumal Nathumal Virlani, on inmate of the car. The widow and minor daughters of the said deceased filed a Claim Petition No. 320 of 1980 against the drivers and owners of the two vehicles involved in the accident as well as the Insurance Company with which the motor truck was insured seeking compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. At the trial the claimants examined the widow of the deceased and one Babubhai Chhaganlal who claimed to be travelling in the Fiat Car with the deceased at the time of the accident. The driver and the owner of the Fiat Car did not choose to enter the witness-box. The driver of the truck, Manilal Prabaudas, gave evidence on behalf of the opponents in relation to that vehicle. The Claims Tribunal rejected the claim of witness Babubhai Chhaganlal as an ey...
Tag this Judgment!Navinchandra Dahyabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Guj138; (1987)2GLR864
ORDER1. to 4. x x x x x x x x x x 5. In about the month of April, 1983, the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat, issued show cause notices under S. 211 of the Code to the petitioners for canceling the permission granted by the TDO under S. 65 of the Code read with S. 157 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 and the relevant notifications issued thereunder by the State Government x x x x x x x x.6. and 7. x x x x x x x x x x 8. Normally, such writ petitions would be under Art. 227 of the Constitution but Art. 226 of the Constitution is invoked on the basis of certain allegations made in paragraph 8 of the petition. It is alleged that after Vaghodia was Declared a Grade C growth center it was obvious that the area would soon develop into an industrial township. Since one of the Cabinet Ministers hailed from the constituency comprising Vaghodia Taluka, there was political jealousy as it was ' felt that the benefit of prosperity of that area would help boost his image....
Tag this Judgment!Bipinchandra G. Dalal and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-1987
Reported in: (1987)2GLR971
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. These two petitions are directed against the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department of the State of Gujarat, in exercise of power conferred by Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter called 'the Code') whereby he cancelled the permission granted by the Taluka Development Officer, Mangrol, (hereinafter called 'TDO') under Section 65 of the Code. The facts giving rise to these petitions, briefly stated, are as under.2. The first petition, Special Civil Application No. 4577 of 1984, has been filed by two petitioners who had applied under Section 65 of the Code for permission to make non-agricultural use of the land bearing Survey No. 152/1 in Block No. 120 admeasuring about 4 acres 3 gunthas which they had purchased under a registered sale deed dated 20th July 1981 for Rs. 40,401/-. The case of the petitioners is that they were entitled to purchase the land in question since they themselves were agriculturists. The lands in question ...
Tag this Judgment!Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-15-1987
Reported in: (1987)2GLR982
M.B. Shah, J.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated March 24, 1987 passed by the Designated Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol, in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 116 of 1987, rejecting the application for releasing the applicants on bail, the applicants have filed this application under Section 439 and/or 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to release them on bail.2. The applicants and other persons are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 324, 323, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as 'The Terrorist Act'). The incident took place on March 10, 1987. The applicants were arrested on the same day. The applicants filed an application before the Designated Court for releasing them on bail. The Designated Court arrived at the conclusion that prima facie the acts co...
Tag this Judgment!Usmanbhai Pareedbhai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-12-1987
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1955
M.B. Shah, J.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the Judgment and order dated March 24, 1987 passed by the Designated Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 116 of 1987, rejecting the application for releasing the applicants on bail, the applicants have filed this application under Section 439 and/or 482 of the Cr. P.C. to release them on bail.2. The applicants and other persons are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 324, 323, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as The Terrorist Act'). The incident took place on March 10, 1987. The applicants were arrested on the same day. The applicants filed an application before the Designated Court for releasing them on bail. The Designated Court arrived at the conclusion that prima facie the acts committed by the a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›