Gujarat Court December 1992 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.
Rasulbhai Pirbhai Shaik Vs. Jasumatiben Indravadan Trivedi and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-18-1992
Reported in: (1993)1GLR519; (1993)IILLJ18Guj; (1993)IILLJ841Guj
Nanavati, J.1. This petition is filed by the workman as his application Ex. 4, filed in Reference (LCN) No. 864 of 1983 for bringing the heirs of the deceased employer Indravadan Shankerlal Trivedi on record of that reference has been rejected. 2. From the order, it appears that the reference was made on June 18, 1983 and the employer died on August 29, 1983. On March 30, 1984, the workman gave application Ex. 4, for bringing Jasumati, Shirishkumar and Rohitkumar as heirs of the deceased Indravadan. Notices were issued to the proposed heirs. They appeared before the Court and opposed the application, inter alia, on the ground that the Labour Court cannot go beyond the terms of the reference and, therefore, it was not within its jurisdiction to substitute the heirs of the deceased as party to the reference. The Labour Court, relying upon the decision of the Madras High Court in V. Veeramani v. The Management of Madurai Dist Co-op. S.& M. Socy. Ltd., 1983-II-LLJ-88, upheld the contention...
Shri Rang Touring Talkies Vs. M.C. Naik and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-17-1992
Reported in: (1993)1GLR900
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. The pertinent and relevant facts in brief leading to the present petition are as under:2. The petitioner was running a Shri Rang Touring Cinema at village Umalla in Jhagadia Taluka of Bharuch District and at the relevant point of time, was holding an appropriate licence issued in that regard under the provisions of the Bombay Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1953 read with the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954. The licence originally issued to the petitioner was dated 9th November, 1981 and was for the validly period of one year. According to the petitioner, this licence was renewed from time to time and ultimately expired on 31st December, 1986. Although there is a some controversy as to whether it expired on 31st December, 1986 or on 30th June, 1987, this is a minor aspect which does not affect the merits of the case.3. At the relevant point of time, when the licence was about to expire on 31st December, 1986, the Licensing Authority wrote a letter to the petitioner dated 20th Decem...
State of Gujarat Vs. Somabhai Dhurabhai Sindhava and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-16-1992
Reported in: 1(1994)ACC64; (1993)2GLR1043
C.V. Jani, J.1. (His Lordships after stating the facts of the case, further observed:)2. Now for computing the future economic loss of an injured person, the Court has to apply its mind not only to the abstract percentage of loss of earning capacity, but also the actual economic loss sustained or likely to be sustained by the injured person. Merely computing the economic loss on the basis of the medical certificate regarding physical disability will amount to turning a blind eye to the reality of actual economic loss. It is admitted by all concerned at the Bar that Jivaji has been promoted twice after the accident and Saburbeg was promoted in the year 1987. Thus, the disability certified by the Doctor has not actually resulted in economic loss and it is not likely to result in such a loss till their retirement. It can of course be said that loss of earning capacity on account of physical disability would materialise after their retirement when in normal physical conditions they would b...
industrial Chemical Works and ors. Vs. Dahyabhai Kalubhai Solanki and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-16-1992
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1318
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The petitioners, by this petition, have assailed the order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, on 26-9-1991 in Criminal Case No. 728 of 1989, by invoking the aids of the provisions of Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('Code' for short).2. A short resume of the facts giving rise to the present petition, may be narrated, at the outset.Respondent No. 1 herein is the original complainant and the petitioners herein are the original accused, against whom a criminal complaint was filed in the trial Court for the violation of the provisions of Section 25 punishable under the provisions of Section 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 ('the Act' for short), on 27-3-1989. The substratum of the prosecution case is that the accused persons are responsible and guilty for the discharge of 10,000 litres of untreated trade effluent into the stream of a river and for the pollution of water, etc....
Amarsinh Swaroopsinh and ors. Vs. Jagdish Processors
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-1992
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1398; (1994)ILLJ743Guj
A.P. Ravani, J.1. If an application is filed under Section 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 raising grievance about the illegal change, before expiry of the prescribed period as provided under the proviso to Section 42(4) of the said Act read with Rule 53 of the Bombay Industrial Relations (Gujarat) Rules, 1961, is the application liable to be rejected? This question is required to be answered in the background of the facts that follow: The petitioners were serving in Screen Printing Department of respondent's processing unit for a period of about 4 1/2 to 5 years prior to the date of their discharge from service on August 10, 1985. They challenged the legality and validity of their discharge from service by filing T. Applications No. 341, 342 and 343 of 1985 under Section 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent-employer resisted the applications. The Labour Court on merits held that the stand taken by the em...
Purshottamdas Kuberdas Soni Vs. Gulabchand Ramjibhai Shah (Since Deed. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-11-1992
Reported in: (1993)1GLR773
C.K. Thakker, J.1. This revision application is filed against the decree passed by the District Court, Bhavnagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1979 by which that Court allowed an appeal filed by the appellant and reversed the decree for possession passed by the trial Court.2. To appreciate the controversy in question, few relevant facts may now be stated.The petitioner was the original plaintiff while one Gulabchand Ramjibhai Shah (since deceased) was the original defendant. After the death of said Gulabchand, his heirs were brought on record in the present proceedings. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 307 of 1973 in the Court of the Civil Judge (J.D.), Bhavnagar for possession of the suit premises, inter alia, on the ground that the defendant had not used the premises for the purpose for which it was let for a period of more than six months immediately preceding the date of the suit without any reasonable cause that the defendant was in arrears of rent and was not ready ...
Manohar Jamatmal Sindhi and anr. Vs. Ranguba and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-10-1992
Reported in: 1994ACJ1280; (1993)1GLR865
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The present appeal is filed by the appellants who are the original opponent Nos. 1 and 3 in as much as the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-3 (Main), Ahmedabad, held them liable to pay to the original petitioners a sum of Rs. 55,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from 27.3.1980 till the payment and for depositing the said amount of award within eight weeks and that the petition against original opponent No. 4, namely, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., who was the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident, was dismissed with no order as to costs. The aforesaid award and order was passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on 31.3.1982 in Motor Accidents Claim Petition No. 154 of 1980.2. Short facts of the appeal can be stated as under:The appellant No. 1 herein was the original opponent No. 1 and was the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident while the appellant No. 2 herein and the original opponent No. 3 is the owner of th...
Vimpson Precision Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-10-1992
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1015
M.B. Shah, J.1. In this group of matters, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 6th April, 1992 issued by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Clause (a) of Section 9 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Stamp Act') superseding previous Government orders including an order dated 28th March, 1987 issued under Section 9(a), and providing for remission or reduction, with effect from 1st April, 1992, of the duty payable on the instrument of mortgage deed, as defined in Clause (p) of Section 2 of the Stamp Act, executed by any person on behalf of any industrial undertaking in favour of any of the Financial Institutions specified in Annexure 'I' and also executed by or on behalf of any of the said Financial Institutions, for securing repayment of loan advanced or to be advanced to such industrial undertaking.2. Questions involved in these petitions are: (i) from which date the order dated 28th March, 1987 stands cancelled or superseded? and...
Velajibhai Muljibhai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Guj140
ORDERR.A. Mehta, J. 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard today. 2. The eight petitioners were elected under Section 111(l)(i) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963. Their election was challenged by the respondents Nos. 6 to 13 who had also contested the election and lost the same. The election was challenged on the only ground that the voters list was prepared on illegal principle and the election based on such illegal voters' list has to be necessarily set aside. It was submitted that 13 members of the managing committee of Boratwada Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. were illegally included in the voters' list of the constituency of agriculturists and they had voted at the election and, therefore, the election is illegal. The election was challenged under Rule 28 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 which provides that if the validity of any election of a member of the Market Committee is brought in question, the Director shall, a...
Executive Engineer, Panchayat (Randb) Division Dt. Panchayat Surendran ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-1992
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ835Guj
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. Rule. Miss Shah, learned Advocate, appears for the respondent-workman and waives service of rule. At the request of both the learned Advocates, this petition is taken up for final hearing today. 2. This petition is filed by the Executive Engineer, Panchayat (R&B;) Division, Surendranagar, challenging the award passed by the Labour Court in Reference (CLS) No. 658 of 1989. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Labour Court has committed an error in not passing in proper order while ordering reinstatement and granting 50% back wages. It is an admitted position that the workman was daily wager. It is also an admitted position that in no year he had completed 240 days but the Labour Court has believed that after he was relieved from service, other persons were employed by the petitioner and, therefore, there was a breach of Section 25(H) and (C) of the Industrial Disputes Act. While passing the final order the Labour Court has ordered that the workman would be rei...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »