Gujarat Court February 1988 Judgments
Pandya Purnaben Pranshankar and ors. Vs. Director of Education and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR807
J.P. Desai, J.1. The petitioners who are serving as Assistant Teachers in Municipal Girls High School, Amreli have by this petition challenged the appointment of respondent No. 5 Shri P.K. Rupala as Principal of the said Girls High School on several grounds, the main ground being that Shri Rupala being a male, could not have been appointed as Principal of the Girls High School in view of the proviso to Regulation 20(1) of the Gujarat Secondary Regulations, 1974 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Regulations') framed by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 54 of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioners have alleged that they along with others applied for the post in question, but ultimately two females and respondent No. 5 were a selected, but as the two females refused to accept the appointment. Shri P.K. Rupala has been appointed as Principal as per the say of the respondents. The petit...
Tag this Judgment!Cotseeds Corporation Vs. Cotton Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR1021
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Even if one covers a marble stone with beautiful linen cloth or with flowers, the marble stone does not change its real character and worth. Similarly, by throwing the veil of suitable phraseology on the relief Clause in the plaint the subject-matter of the suit cannot be changed. In the back-drop of the facts that follow, these observations are called for.2. It was the case of the petitioner-plaintiff that it is a registered partnership firm doing the business of purchase and sale of cotton seeds and cotton; that it had entered into two separate contracts with the defendant Cotton Corporation of India for purchase of Manavadar Cotton Seeds. As per the contract dated November 28, 1986 the defendant was required to deliver 4500 quintals of cotton seeds at the rate of Rs. 61.25 ps. per 20 kgs. As per the contract dated December 8, 1986 the defendant was required to deliver 450 quintals of cotton seeds at the rate of Rs. 64.50 ps. per 20 kg. The defendant had supplied 12...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanial P. Shah and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Guj61; (1988)2GLR1154
Gokulakrishnan, C. J.1. Two lecturers of colleges affiliated to respondent 2-University, who are also Senate Members and who claim to have no personal interest in the subject matter of the present petition, have felt constrained in the interest of high standards, norms, principles and the purity of education and educational institutions to file the present petition challenging what they claim to be arbitrary action of the respondents in the matter of procedure of appointment LCI :he pivotal office Of the Vice-Chancellor of respondent No. 2-University, in the matter of recommendations of the names for the said office and also regarding the functions of the Committee in the matter Of the said appointment.2. The factual background alleged by the petitioners is as under:- Since the academic and executive councils in the Gujarat University were not existing at the relevant time due to pending litigation, it had not been possible to call a joint meeting of the Executive Council and the Acade...
Tag this Judgment!Vaidya Harishankar Laxmiram Rajyaguru Vs. Pratapray Harishankar Rajyag ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR986
D.H. Shukla, J.1. It is saddening to start with the introduction of parties and the back drop of circumstances in which this Revision Application has come up for final hearing before me.2. The petitioner, Vaidya Harishankar Laxmiram Rajyaguru, is the father of respondent, Pratapray Harishankar Rajyaguru. Respondent is the son of the petitioner. Both of them are established Vaidyas in Rajkot. It is a well-to-do family. Both of them, and particularly the petitioner, are advanced in age. They have been fighting between themselves since more than a decade. I was, therefore, very eager to see that the matter was amicably settled between them. I called both of them before me and intervened in every small item of their dispute to see that once again they may have a real relationship of father and son between them. At one stage, I was hopeful that my sincere attempts may succeed, but in the end, my attempts failed, as both of them could not see eye to eye with each other, both literally and fi...
Tag this Judgment!Girdharsinh Ramsinh Parmar Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR1095
D.H. Shukla, J.1. The petitioner, Girdharsinh Ramsinh Parmar, has filed the present Special Civil Application, having been aggrieved by the order to prematurely retire him in public interest, dated 21-7-1987.2. The petitioner joined the Police Force in the former State of Saurashtra on 13-7-1951 and on 1-10-1951 he was promoted as an Unarmed Head Constable in the District of Rajkot. Later on, taking his efficient discharge of duties into account, he was upgraded as IIIrd Grade Head Constable and thereafter as IInd Grade Head Constable. He was also selected for training as P.S.I. in the year 1961. After he completed his training, he was posted as a probationary P.S.I. for practical training in Baroda District in the year 1962. While he was at Baroda, a departmental inquiry was instituted against him, in which he was reverted to substantive tank of Head Constable for a period of three years. After completion of three years, he was again promoted as P.S.I. and he was confirmed as P.S.I.3....
Tag this Judgment!Patel Lilabhai Ambalal and Etc. Vs. Patel Kanubhai Mafatlal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1898; (1988)2GLR1175
ORDERR.A. Mehta, J.1. Both these applications are by the same petitioner for substantially same relief. The petitioner is the original complainant and brother of deceased Babiben, wife of one Kanubhai/Mafatlal Patel, respondent No. 1 in Cr. Misc. Application No. 2095/87. The other respondents are the family members of the husband and in-laws of the deceased It is not in dispute that this is a case of unnatural death of Babiben. The complainant petitioner suspects that his sister has been murdered by the respondents accused He gave written complaint to Chanasma police station which is annexure-A to the Special Criminal Application. The incident had taken place at about 9-00 p.m. on 8-8-1987. The written complaint was given on 10-8-1987. However, that was not recorded as FIR. Therein it was stated that the in-laws had done his sister to death.(matter in vernacular omitted - Ed.)However, on the next day i.e. on 11-8-1987, a statement of the complainant was recorded which has been register...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Chemicals Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-1988
Reported in: (1988)1GLR589
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The Gujarat State Legislature enacted the Gujarat Mineral Rights Tax Act, 1985 (Gujarat Act 19 of 1985) (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Act' or 'the impugned Legislation') to provide for the levy and collection of tax on mineral rights of holders of mining leases in respect of certain minerals in the State of Gujarat specified in the Schedule. The Act received the assent of the Governor of Gujarat on 2nd August, 1985 and was first published in the Gujarat Government Gazette on 3rd August, 1985. By a notification dated 29th October, 1985 issued under Sub-section (3) of Section 1, the State Government brought the Act into force with effect from 1st November, 19852. The petitioners of this group of Writ Petitions arc holders of mining leases granted by the State of Gujarat under provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Central Act, 67 of 1957) (hereinafter called 'the Central Act') read with the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Nanji Devji and ors. Vs. Patel Jivraj Manji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-20-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Guj182; (1988)2GLR830
ORDER1. Seven (out of eleven) trustees of public trust known as 'Shri Santpath. Sampradaya Jyotidham Mandir', Nana Kadiya, Taluka Nakhtrana, Dt. Kutch, filed the suit inter alia praying that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 who are acting as trustees of the trust be removed as trustees and be also permanently restrained from interfering with the management of the trust. The respondent appeared in the suit and resisted the same on facts as well as on law points. The respondents submitted an application under O. VII, R. 11(d) of the C.P. Code and prayed that the suit was barred by the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') inasmuch as necessary consent of the Charity Commissioner before filing the suit has not been obtained and hence the suit is liable to be rejected. The trial Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that as per the provisions of S. 51 of the Act, consent of the Charity Commissioner was necessary before filing the suit in ...
Tag this Judgment!Arab Ahemadhia Abdulla and Etc. Vs. Arab Bail Mohmuna Saiyadbhai and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-18-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Guj141; (1988)1GLR452
ORDER1. In these petitions the questions which arise for determination are :(1) Whether by the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the'MuslimWomen Act', the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, under S. 125 of the Criminal P. C. ordering the husband to ppy maintenance to the wife are nullif ied? (2) Whether the Muslim Women Act takes away the rights which are conferred upon the divorced women under the Personal Law as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum : 1985CriLJ875 (3) Whether the Muslim Women Act provides that a divorced woman is entitled to have the maintenance only during the iddat period i.e. only for the iddat period? As these questions are of importance, a number of learned advocates intervened in the matter and they ably rendered assistance.2. For deciding the aforesaid questions it would be necessary to refer to the preamble of the Act which re...
Tag this Judgment!Bhogilal Manilal Parmar Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-18-1988
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1254; (1988)2GLR929
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of two of us (S.B. Majmudar and B.S. Kapadia, JJ.) by an order dated 20th January 1988 referred the following question for decision of a larger bench:Whether Rule 13(xi)of the Gujarat Conditions of Detention (PASA) Order 1985 as it stood at the relevant time, to the extent to which it provided interview to the detenu by a legal practitioner subject to the permission of the State Government was unconstitutional and invalid, on the ground that it violated Articles 14, 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution of India.Accordingly, papers of this matter were placed before the learned Chief Justice for making reference to the larger bench. This matter has now been placed before us for resolving the aforesaid question.2. In order to appreciate the contours of controversy centering round the aforesaid question, it will be necessary to have a quick glance at a few introductory facts leading to this Reference.3. Introductory facts:-The petit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »