Gujarat Court June 1988 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.
Physical Research Laboratory and ors. Vs. Dr. Mukul Sinha
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR1355
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. These Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the judgment of the learned single Judge of this High Court allowing Special Civil Application No. 3337 of 1979. The main prayers in the Special Civil Application were: (a) declare the notice dated 2-11-1979 of termination of services of the petitioner, at Annexure 'E' as unconstitutional, being in violation of Articles 14 and 16 and null and void and quash the same; (b) direct the respondents to treat the impugned notice at Annexure 'E' as having never been issued and to treat the petitioner in the Special Civil Application to be in service as if the impugned notice has never been issued and to grant him all the benefits flowing from his continuous service; and (c) direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full backwages.2. To appreciate the contentions of the respective parties, we have to look into certain relevant facts in this case. The Physical Research Laboratory was originally set up on November...
Ahmedabad New Textile Mills Vs. Textile Labour Association and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-17-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR1324; (1994)IIILLJ169Guj
Ahmadi, J.1. The workman, Noorahmad Pirbhai (Second respondent), was serving in the 'Sarni' Department of the Ahmedabad New Textile Mills (Now a unit of National Textile Corporation), at all material times. He was also a representative of the Textile Labour Association (First respondent) in the 'Sarni' Department of the Mill in 1981. Two show-cause notices, first dated 16th September, 1981 and the second dated 21st September, 1981 containing allegations of misconduct by the said workman were served upon him by the management. Immediately thereafter he was placed under suspension with effect from 22nd September, 1981. In the first show-cause notice Exhibit 10 dated 16th September, 1981 it was alleged that he proceeded on sick leave from 10th August, 1981 to 20th August, 1981 and on 21st August, 1981 forwarded certificates of sickness and fitness from E.S.I. Corporation but did not report for work and remained absent without leave with effect from 21st August, 1981 and later produced a c...
Alok Badridas Agrawal Vs. B.M. Bhatt, Superintendent, Central Excise a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ765; (1988)2GLR1404
ORDERM.B. Shah, J.1. The only question which requires determination in this revision application is whether the Superintendent, Central Excise, who has investigated the case is required to file complaint or submit charge-sheet before the Magistrate for the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner-accused under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. Learned Counsel Mr. Barot submitted that under Section 53 of the Act the powers of an officer in charge of a police station for investigation of the offences under the Act are given to the Central Excise Officers, the customs officers and other officers. Therefore, respondent No. 1 is required to submit charge-sheet after completion of the investigation and he cannot file private complaint before the learned Magistrate. For emphasizing his submission, he submitted that under different provisions of the Act different types of powers are conferred upo...
State of Gujarat Vs. Jitendra Gangadas Parekh
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR1244
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baroda in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 1980 whereby he acquitted the present respondent-original accused. The respondent-accused had filed the said appeal against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Municipal), Baroda in Criminal Case No. 5387 of 1979. Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 1981 is filed by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge; whereas Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 1981 is filed by the Food Inspector who is the original complainant, against the said order of acquittal. As both these appeals arise out of the same judgment, they were heard together; and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. On 10-5-1979 at about 8-30 a.m. Food Inspector Manubhai Maganlal Pandya visited the shop of the accused. At that time the accused was present in his shop. In the front ...
Brijlal Ambaram Rana Vs. Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-15-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR1239
J.P. Desai, J.1. The petitioner is detained by an order dated 23-12-1987 Annexure 'A', by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. The order of detention is challenged on several grounds. We do not propose to go into all the grounds of challenge because one of the grounds of challenge has appealed to us. That ground of challenge is that copies of several documents were supplied to the detenu but two documents (pages 49 fo 56 of the compilation) were supplied to the detenu in English and the detenu did not understand English language. The ground of challenge is that Gujarati translation of these documents ought to have been supplied to the detenu so as to enable him to make an effective representation against the order of detention. The ground of challenge further is that because the translation was not supplied, the detenu could not make effective representation and, therefore, the detention...
Arun Subodhbhai Mehta and anr. Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-09-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR1273
P.M. Chauhan, J.1. Mr. K.G. Vakharia for respondents Nos. I to 4 and Shri Jayant Patel for respondents Nos. 5 and 6 waive service of rule. By the request of the learned Advocates for the parties rule heard.2. The petitioners claiming to have been elected President and Vice-President respectively of the Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, by this petition pray for the writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the action of the respondent-authorities, adjourning the meeting scheduled to be held on June 1, 1988 by, circular, being illegal and contrary to the provisions of law and for the direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to hold the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor respectively, of the Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and further direction to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 not to restrain the petitioners to hold the office of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor respectively, and perform the duti...
Gordhanbhai Kanjibhai Vs. Upleta Municipality and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-01-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Guj205; (1988)2GLR1234
1. Rule. Mr. J. R. Nanavaty, learned advocate for respondents waives service of rule.2. The no confidence motion is passed by 24 councillors of Upleta Municipality in a meeting on May 27, 1988 and that is being challenged by the petitioner, the President of Upleta Municipality, on the grounds : viz. (i) the reasons were not stated in the notice of no confidence motion and that notice was not as per the prescribed form, (ii) the meeting was called on May 17,1988, but was adjourned and subsequently in the adjourned meeting no confidence motion was passed, but the meeting could not have been legally adjourned on May 17, 1988, (iii) all the members were not informed of the adjourned meeting, (iv) the resolution is passed mala fide as the petitioner President did not accede to certain demands of the members.2. Shri C. K. Thakker, advocate for petitioner, submits that as provided under sub-section (1) of S. 36 the Gujarat Municipalities Act, the notice of no confidence motion should be in Su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›