Gujarat Court April 1993 Judgments
Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer Co. Ltd. Vs. Parver Rustamji Kasad a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-30-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR5
S.D. Shah, J.1. This group of Civil Revision Applications is directed against the common judgment and order rendered by the Second Joint District Judge, Surat dated 12-2-1993 whereby application at Exh. 8 presented in Land Reference Cases No. 30 to 32 of 1991 and 37 to 65 of 1991 is dismissed.2. The present petitioner before this Court is a Joint Sector Company for whose benefit land admeasuring about 300 acres situated at village Borakhadi came to be acquired by Collector, Surat. The respondents in this proceeding are the owners of various parcels of land along with Special Land Acquisition Officer. It appears that acquisition proceedings with respect to the aforesaid parcels of land were initiated and various land owners had entered into an agreement with the petitioner-Company, namely, Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'), for transfer of lands at the agreed rate of Rs. 10,751/- per acre. It also appears that the respective own...
Tag this Judgment!Anilbhai Dwarkadas Patel and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-30-1993
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1024
B.C. Patel, J.1. This matter was heard at length on 29th and 30th March, 1993. The learned Advocate for the petitioners as well as Mr. Dave, learned Asst. Govt. Pleader have advanced various arguments in this matter.2. Petitioners have preferred this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal which has confirmed the order passed by the Competent Officer under provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Only two contentions have been advanced before me:(i) With regard to the property situated at Shahpur, which is referred to at Sl. No. 3 in the order passed by the Competent Authority at Annexure 'A', the authorities ought to have come to the conclusion that the land being occupied by buildings, is not a 'vacant land', and,(ii) Property referred to at Sl. No. 5 Survey No. 274 of Hirpur which is a piece of land being used by the petitioner as agricultura...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Thakor Bhemaji Ganeshji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-29-1993
Reported in: II(1993)ACC638; 1993ACJ630; (1993)2GLR1051
C.V. Jani, J.1. This appeal filed by an insurance company under section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been referred to us by the Division Bench, consisting of S. B. Majmudar and I. C. Bhatt JJ., as they then were, which took the view that section 95(2)(b)(i) of the Act required correct interpretation in view of the apparently conflicting judgments of two Division Benches of this court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ganchi Ramanlal Kantilal [1979] ACJ 65 (Guj) and State of Gujarat v. Hansa Visanji Rana [1988] 2 TAC 135. The order for reference was made at the time of admitting the appeal, and the relevant portion of the said order which relates to the controversy is reproduced hereinbelow : 'Admit. This appeal is directed to be referred to a larger Bench in view of the fact that the decision of which the appellant-insurance company relies in the case of State of Gujarat v. Hansa Visanji Rana [1988] 2 TAC 135, comes t...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Water Pollution Control Board Vs. Kohinoor Dyeing and Printing ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-29-1993
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1368
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. The question of quite great public importance, perhaps arising for the first time in the group of these 7 Criminal Revision Application in the matter of proceedings under Section 33 of the Water [Prevention & Control of Pollution] Act, 1974, mainly pertains to the interpretation of Section 33 of the Act itself and in particular that of the expression 'to desist from taking such action as is likely to cause pollution' appearing in Clause (i) of Sub-section (3) of Section 33 of the Act.2. In all these matters, having regard to the common question of law involved therein and, arising out of more or less identical facts-situation, This Court at the joint request and with the consent of the learned Advocate for the petitioner-Board and the learned A.P.Ps., has decided to hear and decide all of them together by this common judgment. It may be mentioned here that at the time of hearing of these matters, neither the respondents nor their learned Advocates have remained presen...
Tag this Judgment!Jitendrakumar Maganbhai Patel Vs. Parshottamdas Govindbhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-29-1993
Reported in: (1993)1GLR830
S.D. Dave, J.1. This Civil Revision Application has been directed against the orders pronounced by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Nadiad, dated 1st February, 1988 below Exhibit-1 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 123 of 1987 which calls upon me to decide and answer the undermentioned two questions:(I) Whether the First Appellate Court can decide and dismiss an appeal on merits, in absence of the appellant or the Advocate representing his cause, or whether it has a limited scope of dismissing the appeal for appellant's default only ?(II) Whether the authority or jurisdiction to decide and dismiss the appeal on merits, in absence of the appellant or his Advocate can be derived from the provisions contained under Section 107, Section 151 or Rule 33 of Order 41 of the Code ?The facts:2. The plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 268 of 1985 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (J. D.), Borsad for permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of the agricultural land bearing Su...
Tag this Judgment!N.K. Bellaney Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-27-1993
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ788Guj
S. Nainar Sundaram, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3159 of 1982. The petitioner in the Special Civil Application is the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal and the respondent in the Special Civil Application is the respondent in this Letters Patent Appeal.2. The appellant, who was in the cadre of a District Health Officer, was given promotion as Zonal Officer (Malaria) - Class I on July 14, 1980. However, without assigning any reason and without even putting on notice the appellant of the action to be taken his promotion was kept in abeyance. The appellant would say that this happened pursuant to a telegram from the Secretary, Health Department received by the concerned District Development Officer, on July 16, 1980. Admittedly, on that day, there was no disciplinary proceedings pending against the appellant. It is found that the disciplinary proceedings were, subsequently, prosecuted and ...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kamlaben Sultansinh Jadav and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-26-1993
Reported in: II(1993)ACC479; 1993ACJ673; AIR1993Guj171; (1993)1GLR779
M.B. Shah, J. I. BRIEF FACTS:1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baroda, has awarded compensation amount of Rs. 53,400 / by judgment and order dated April 3, 1978 to the heirs of the deceased, Sultan Singh, who expired on January 8, 1976. That order is challenged by the Insurance Company by filing this First Appeal. The Insurance Company contended that, when a person is travelling by a 'goods vehicle' even by paying fare, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured or, in any case, its liability under the statutory insurance coverage is limited. The entire matter is referred to Larger Bench by the Division Bench of this Court after hearing the learned advocates for the parties. Before referring the entire matter for decision to the Larger Bench, the Division Bench of this Court has suggested the following questions, which are required to be determined by this Court.(i) What would be the extent of liability of the Insurer under Section 95(2) in respect of death of or...
Tag this Judgment!P.J. Radadia Vs. State Bank of Saurashtra
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-26-1993
Reported in: (1993)1GLR896; (1994)ILLJ430Guj
C.K. Thakker, J.1. This petition is filed against an order of dismissal passed by the Regional Manager of the Stale Bank of Saurashtra on January 8, 1991 and confirmed by the Zonal Manager (Appellate Authority) on March 15, 1991 being illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional.2. To appreciate the controversy raised in the petition, few relevant facts may now be stated:It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as Cashier-cum-Clerk with the respondent-Bank of Jasdan Branch. A complaint was filed against him on September 15, 1989 in connection with offences punishable under Sections 420, 419 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged against the petitioner that by tampering with a demand draft of a customer of the Bank, the petitioner misappropriated an amount of Rs. 1,65,000/-. A criminal case came to be registered against him. The petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge on March 15, 1990 and prayed for grant of probation. Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Jasdan after ...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal Ambalal Patel and ors. Vs. Maniben W/O Narayanbhai Punjiram Pa ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-26-1993
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1312
S. Nainar Sundaram, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is being sought to be preferred against the order of the learned single Judge made on 9-3-1993 in Civil Application No. 514 of 1993, which was one for condonation of delay in filing a Second Appeal. The learned single Judge dismissed the Civil Application in the following terms:No substantial question of law is made out. Therefore, C.A. is disposed of as dismissed. No orders as to costs.There is no declaration by the learned single Judge that the case is a fit one for further appeal.2. The question that comes up for consideration on the basis of the Office Note is with reference to the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal. The learned single Judge was asked to consider the application for condonation of delay in preferring the Second Appeal. The papers in the Second Appeal, obviously, have been presented into the Court. The application for condonation of delay is part of the proceedings in the Second Appeal. Only by condonat...
Tag this Judgment!Dadmahammad Alias Dadu Fakirmahammad Makrani, Etc. Etc. Vs. State of G ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-26-1993
Reported in: 1995CriLJ334; (1993)2GLR1767
Kapadia, J. 1. The petitioners in the aforesaid petitions are the detenus against whom the detention orders respectively dated 13-11-1992, 5-11-1992, 7-11-1992 and 13-11-1992 are passed. The said orders have been passed by Shri D.P. Patel against the petitioners under Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short PASA Act). In these cases, it is not necessary to state the facts of each case, about the material on which the detaining authority has relied on and other factors considered by him before arriving at the subjective satisfaction for detaining the petitioners, because, the point which is urged by us is that Shri D.P. Patel, who has passed the orders, was not the District Magistrate specially empowered to do so and that, therefore, the orders passed by him are bad and illegal. Mr. A.R. Thakkar the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that Shri D.P. Patel at the relevant time was not the District Magistrate, but was a Residen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »