Gujarat Court August 1989 Judgments
Pandya Jashwantlal M. and ors. Vs. District Superintendent of Police a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-1989
Reported in: (1990)1GLR515
P.M. Chauhan, J. 1. Petitioners claim to have been selected and included in the select list for the appointment as Armed Police Constables in the interviews held from December 22, 1987 to December 24, 1987 and pray for writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directions or order in the nature of mandamus by directing the respondent No. 1 not to cancel the select list of the Armed Police Constables and to appoint the petitioners who are included in the select list. 2. Petitioners were called for the interview for appointment to the post of Armed Police Constables from December 22, 1987 to December 24, 1987 and after the select list was prepared but it was officially not published and the petitioners were also not informed of having been included in the select list. At the time of selection requisite educational qualifications as per the Constable (Armed Branch, Unarmed Branch and Women Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1979), for the post of Armed Police Constable was passing of Std. VI...
Tag this Judgment!Janakbhai Haribhai Ladva Vs. Bhavnaben @ Taraben Jivabhai Gajan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-28-1989
Reported in: I(1990)DMC575; (1990)1GLR118
A.P. Ravani, J. 1. The petitioner-original plaintiff filed Hindu Marriage Petition for divorce inter alia on the ground that a decree for judicial separation was passed and after the decree for judicial separation was passed, the requisite period entitling him to pray for decree for divorce has already elapsed. Hence he prayed for decree for divorce. During the pendency of the Hindu Marriage Petition, opponent-wife filed application Exh. 13 and prayed for maintenance pendente lite. After hearing the parties the trial court directed the petitioner-husband to pay an amount of Rs. 500/- as and by way of expenses of the proceedings on or before 16th April, 1984. The trial court also directed the petitioner-plaintiff to pay an amount of Rs. 250/- per month upto 31st March, 1984. The trial court directed that the arrears from the date of institution of the petition upto March 31, 1984 be paid or deposited in Court by the petitioner on or before April 16, 1984. The trial court also directed t...
Tag this Judgment!ishwarbhai Motibhai Bhatt Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-28-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Guj64; (1990)1GLR47
Gokulakrishnan, C. J.1. Rule. Mr. Chhaya waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents.2. This Special Civil Application is for issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, directing the respondent No. 2 to refer the matter under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Court. As per Annexure 'D' to the Special Civil Application, the Land Acquisition Officer has rejected the application filed under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act as time barred. In view of the rejection of the application, the present Special Civil Application has been filed.3. The award in this case was made as early as on 15th April, 1985. Immediately thereafter the petitioner has filed an application under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Distric Court, Narol. This was filed on 1-7-1985. The Narol Court, by its order dated 20th September, 1985 directed the petitioner to file an application before the Land Acquisition Officer, stating therein that under the prov...
Tag this Judgment!Triveni Structurals Ltd. Vs. Steelex Engineering Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-28-1989
Reported in: (1990)1GLR273
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The respondent herein filed application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ('the Act' for short) praying that the Arbitration Agreement between the parties be ordered to be filed in Court and an arbitration be appointed in respect of the disputes between the parties. In this application (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit') an application Exh. 5 has been filed by the plaintiff praying that the defendant (appellant herein) be restrained from disposing of the iron scrap lying at the Vanakbori Thermal Power Station. The application has been granted and against that order this appeal from order is filed.2. The appellant-defendant had entered into a contract for construction of a portion of Vanakbori Thermal Station. The defendant entered into sub-contract with the plaintiff for a part of the construction work. The sub-contract was entered into in the year 1982. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff firm completed the contract work in the year 1987. Therea...
Tag this Judgment!Maisuria Mahendra Bhagwandas and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-28-1989
Reported in: (1990)2GLR719
P.M. Chauhan, J.1. Petitioners, graduates in Mechanical Engineering were appointed in 1985, 1986 and 1987 as the Assistant Lecturers in the post of Lecturers in Mechanical Engineering, in the pay scale of Rs. 650-1040, temporarily on ad hoc basis for the period of 11 months or till the G.P.S.C. selectees or regular appointees from the Head Office are available, whichever is earlier.2. Petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 3754 of 1989, Maisuria Mahendra Bhagwandas, was appointed by the Principal, Dr. S. & S. S. Gandhi College of Engineering and Technical Education, Surat, respondent No. 3, by order dated December 20, 1985 and was subsequently continued by order dated December 22, 1986 on the same terms and conditions, by the Principal of the respondent No. 3. Petitioner in Spl.C.A. No. 3783 of 1989 K. M. Patel was appointed and continued by similar order, by copies of the orders are not produced by the petitioner. Petitioner in Spl. C.A. No. 3784 of 1989, A. G. Patel was appointe...
Tag this Judgment!HussaIn Amibhai Qureshi Vs. Nyaj Mohmed Badankha Babi and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-28-1989
Reported in: (1990)2GLR1035
R.A. Mehta, J.1. This revision application by the original complainant is directed against an order regarding disposal of the muddamal truck. It is directed to be handed over by the Sessions Court to the original accused who has been acquitted.2. In the memo of revision application, it has been pointed out that the trial Court had directed the custody of the truck to be given to the petitioner-complainant and was actually given to the petitioner-complainant on furnishing a bond. It is also pointed out in para 4 of the memo of revision that on 12-3-1981, the truck was involved in a fire and was burnt to ashes. However, this fact was not pointed out to the lower appellate Court namely the Sessions Court at Mehsana. It is not shown whether there is any insurance claimed and whether there is any payment by the insurance company. In any case, the petitioner has given a bond while taking the custody of the truck and that bond would now remain the subject matter for the purpose of this revisi...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Machine Tools Corpn. Ltd. Vs. A.i. Shaikh and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-21-1989
Reported in: (1990)1GLR614; (1994)IIILLJ1191Guj
Majmudar, J.1. ..... ..... ..... ..... .....2. The petitioner-Corporation has brought in challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the action of respondent no. 1 herein making 11 References under the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication of industrial disputes to the Labour Court, : Bhaviiagar in Reference Nos. 218, 227 and 228 to 251 of 1989 as well as the notices issued on 15.6.1989, 19.6.1989 and 20.6.1989 by the first respondent calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why references should not be made of the industrial disputes referred to in these notices. These disputes relate to the retrenchment of the concerned employees.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-Corporation has raised the following contentions in support of this petition:-(1) Earlier the first respondent had already decided to reject the request of the Union to refer the concerned disputes for adjudication and thereafter he changed his opinion and made the references without he...
Tag this Judgment!indravadan Pranlal Shah Vs. General Manager, Ahmedabad Telephones Dist ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-19-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Guj85; (1990)1GLR297
R.A. Mehta, J. 1. The petitioner seeks a direction to quash and set aside the notice of disconnection of the petitioner's telephone No. 445764 and also wants that Rules 421 and 443 of Indian Telegraphs Rules, 1951 be struck down as violative of the principle of natural justice. 2. The petitioner is a partner of M/s. Sukan Chemicals. That partnership firm is a subscriber of other telephones namely 830532 and 830533. In respect of both these telephones, unpaid outstanding dues are Rs.69335 / - as per telephone bills dated 01 - 11 -1988 and 01-01-1989. Since these amounts were not paid in spite of sufficient time having been granted to make the payment, both these telephones of the firm were disconnected on 12-12-1988. 3. Thereafter a notice was issued to the firm on 06-01-1989. A similar notice dated 16-01-1989 was addressed to the petitioner partner by name and therein it was stated that for the nonpayment of the telephone dues of the firm, the personal telephone of the petitioner is al...
Tag this Judgment!Representatives of Harmanbhai Lallubhai Lalitbhai Gordhanbhai @ Karchi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-19-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Guj100; (1990)1GLR192
ORDER1. The petitioners claim to be the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-creditor who died during the pendency of execution application. The petitioners applied for being joined as parties contending that the deceased judgment-creditor had executed will in their favour and they were entitled to proceed further with the execution application. The respondent-original judgment debtors contended that the petitioners should be asked to obtain probate and/or letters of administration with will annexed or without will annexed. Unless they obtain probate or the letters of administration, they cannot be permitted to proceed with the execution application. The trial court upheld the contention raised by the defendants and rejected the application filed by the petitioners herein. Against this order the petitioners have preferred this revision application. 2. The respondents contend that in view of the provisions of Section 214(1)(b) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Koli Lambhabhai Bhanabhai and anr. Vs. Shukla Harilal Narmadashanker
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-19-1989
Reported in: (1990)1GLR50
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The petitioners are judgment-debtors. The respondent judgment-creditor obtained a decree for recovery of certain amount from he petitioners. It is not clear from the record of the case as to for how much amount the judgment-creditor has obtained decree. At one place sum of Rs. 11,070/- is written while at another place sum of Rs. 823.50 ps. is mentioned. Be that as it may, this aspect is not important for deciding the revision petition.2. The judgment-creditor filed execution application for recovery of the amount of decree. Since the amount was not recovered, he also applied by filing application-Exh. 18 for detaining the judgment-debtors in civil prison. The petitioners judgment-debtors resisted the application and contended that there were enough immoveable properties from which the decretal dues can be recovered. The trial Court rejected the aforesaid contention and held that it was for the judgment-debtors to produce evidence to show that they were having suffici...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »