Gujarat Court September 1990 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.
State of Gujarat Vs. Mer Parbat Ramaji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-01-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Guj185; (1991)2GLR705
ORDER1. By this revision, petitioner State has challenged the judgment and order dated 22-4-1985 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, at Jamnagar, in Civil Misc. Appeal No, 113 of 1984. Thus, the State has invoked the provisions of S, 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('Code' for short hereinafter).2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri D. N. Trivedi appeared for the petitioner-State. Learned Advocate Shri M. N. Popat for learned Advocate Mrs. M. C. Thakkar, appeared for the respondent.3. The impugned order is challenged on diverse grounds. However, one of the contentions, pertaining to the competence and jurisdiction of the Court, being important and going to the root of the matter, is examined and considered first. Mr. Trivedi, learned A.G.P. for the State, seriously contended that Civil Court has no jurisdiction and, therefore, the passing of interim order by the trial Court and then confirming by the appellate Court would be totally invalid and illegal. Thus, it brings int...
Raval Maneklal Motiram Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-01-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Guj137; (1991)1GLR212
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The first appeal No. 1319 of 1978 was filed by the original claimant while first appeal No. 71 of 1979 was filed by the State Government. Both these appeals arise from the award given by the learned District Judge, Sabarkantha, D/ - 3 17-78 in Land Acquisition Case No. 1/ 75. The said Land Acquisition Case had arisen on account of the reference made under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred to as the L.A. Act).2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award of Rs. 19,056/- together with interest at the rate of 4V2 per cent from 3 1 st August 1974 till payment or till the deposit of the said amount in the Court with proportionate costs, both the aforesaid parties have filed the appeals stated above. The claimants wants more compensation; while according to the Government the learned District Judge has wrongly increased the compensation.3. The lands are acquired for the Sabarmati Reservoir Project-Dharoi known as Dharoi Project. The lands acquired are of...
Union Bank of India and ors. Vs. Hemantlal Ranchhodbhai Vegad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-01-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Guj113; (1991)1GLR279
ORDER1. By this revision, petitioner bank has entitled the order passed below Ex.56 by the learned Civil Judge (S.B.), at Porbandar on 22-4-1985 in Regular Civil Suit No. 27 of 1983. Thus, the petitioners have invoked the provisions of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code ('Code' for short hereinafter).2. Learned advocate Shri K. M. Patel appeared for the petitioners while learned advocate Shri D. G. Karia appeared for the opponent in this revision.3. Learned advocate Shri Patel, for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the impugned order is totally invalid and illegal. The learned advocate Shri Karia for the opponent repels his contention.4. In fact that the question, which has arisen in this revision, is very short, but very interesting. The short question is, whether the impugned order passed below Ex.56 in legal and valid or not. In order to appreciate the merits of this short question, it would be necessary to set out a few relevant and material facts leading to the ri...
Mahendrakumar Veerabhai Makwana Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-01-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR179
C.K. Thakker, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner against the order dt. February 26, 1986 passed by the Commander, State Reserve Police (SRP) Force, Group-XII, Gandhinagar, respondent No. 2 herein terminating his services.The case of the petitioner is that after he was duly selected, he was appointed as Carpenter by an order dt. May 14, 1984 with effect from that date in the pay scale of Rs. 350-560. The said appointment was purely on temporary basis. He was posted at Nadiad. It is the case of the petitioner that even though his services were satisfactory, by the impugned order dt. February 26, 1986 his services came to be terminated with effect from 30 days from that date. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said order is not an order of termination simpliciter, but by way of penalty and punishment. Since it is punitive in nature, the said action can be taken in consonance with the principles of natural justice by issuing notice, calling for explanation and affor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›