Gujarat Court June 1993 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.
Ramniklal G. Gohil Vs. Dt. Superintendent of Police and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-15-1993
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1555; (1994)ILLJ721Guj
Vaidya, J.1. Petitioner-Ramniklal G. Gohil, by this writ petition under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India, has moved this Court challenging the impugned order dated December 15, 1981 terminating his services passed by the District Superintendent of Police, Amreli, respondent No. 1 herein, inter alia praying for (i) quashing and setting aside the same, (ii) granting consequential reliefs by way of reinstatement with continuity of service, full back-wages, and all such other incidental benefits which are due as per the service conditions.2. To state few relevant facts - The petitioner was selected by the respondent No. 1 for the post of Unarmed Police Constable and was accordingly appointed on the said substantive post in Amreli on December 3, 1979 alongwith other 23 candidates. After the petitioner joined the service, he was sent for training under the relevant service rules to Baroda Police Training School, where on completion of the training, he was issued a Certifi...
J.i. Desai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-15-1993
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1225
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. J.I. Desai, by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has moved This Court inter alia praying for (1) quashing and setting aside the impuged Charge Memo dated 1-1-1979 and for dropping the belated proceedings initiated against him after the lapse of about 8 to 9 years, (2) to direct the respondents to (i) finalise the pension papers at the earliest, (ii) give him T.I. and other allowances including medical allowances issued from time to time by the Government, and (iii) make payment of pension and gratuity amount, and the arrears of other outstanding allowances admissible to the petitioner with interest forthwith, as prayed for, etc. etc.2. According to the petitioner, he was initially recruited in Government service as a Clerk with effect from 15-12-1948, in the Office of the Director of Civil Supplies, Junagadh State and had worked in the said position upto August, 1968. During the period in between August, 1968 to 1972, the petitioner wa...
Multivahuji Vs. Kalindivahuji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-11-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Guj42
ORDERS.D. Shah, J.1. This Civil Revision Application, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the order below Exs. 150 and 152 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 1982 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Porbandar.2. Civil Miscellaneous Application is filed in the Trial Court for Probate in respect of a will allegedly executed by late husband of present petitioner Shrimati Malti Vahuji. Her late husband Goswami Govardhaneshji Girdharlalji has executed a will under which the present petitioner is appointed administrator of the properties left behind by the deceased. The petitioner has therefore filed on 25-1-1982 aforesaid Application for Probate under Section (sic) of the Indian Succession Act. In response to the public notice which was issued in the newspaper one Goswami Natvargopalji Govardhandasji (since deceased) filed his objections and since he died during the pendency of the proceeding his widow present respondent No. 1 was added as...
Jabbarbhai Saibibhai Malek Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-11-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Guj60; (1994)1GLR19
ORDERY.B. Bhatt, J.1. The pertinent facts, in brief, leading to the present revision are as under:1.1 The respondent-plaintiff, viz., the State Bank of India had granted a loan to one Ibrahim Albhabhai Karim (hereinafter referred to as the 'debtor). In respect of this loan the present petitioner-original defendant had become a guarantor by executing the relevant document in favour of respondent-bank. It appears that thereafter the present petitioner-defendant had executed a document in favour of the bank which is commonly referred to as a 'revival letter'.1.2. On an inquiry to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what is the precise form and meaning of such a revival letter, he states that the same is a document executed by the guarantor in favour of the bank whereby he in his individual capacity acknowledges the debt on his part, and that the execution of such document amounts to an acknowledgment of debt.1.3 The respondent-Bank as plaintiff filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 33/8...
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sarojben and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-11-1993
Reported in: 1994ACJ1235; AIR1994Guj59; (1994)1GLR706
ORDERJ.N. Bhatt, J.1. The petitioner, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) has questioned the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Himatnagar, on 20-7-1992, rejecting an application, Ex. 27, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 170 of 1991, holding that proposed parties are not required to be joined as parties in the claim petition, by invoking the aids of the provisions of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).2. The opponents Nos. 1 to 5 are the original claimants and the heirs of deceased-driver, Hariharbhai Gaurishanker, who was driving a Fiat Motor Car on the unfortunate, day of accident. They claimed compensation for the untimely demise of their bread winner in a vehicular accident. The petitioner, GSRTC, is original opponent No. 2 and opponent No. 6 herein is the original opponent No. 1, driver of the offending ST Bus.3. The petitioner submitted an application on 27th March, 1992, at Ex.27, for joining the owner of the Fiat Car and the Insurance...
Harijan Vanabhai Devabhai and ors. Vs. Khoda Gram Panchayat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-10-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Guj1; (1994)1GLR159
S. Nainar Sundaram, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 1386 of 1983. That First Appeal was directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palanpur, in Special Civil Suit No. 55 of 1979. The defendants in the suit have preferred the First Appeal. The plaintiff in the suit is the respondent in the First Appeal. The same is the position in this Letters Patent Appeal. The learned Single Judge summarily dismissed the First Appeal in the following terms.'Dismissed for the reasons mentioned in the judgment. The respondent however may see to it that the standing crops of the appellant may be permitted to be reaped by them, on their filing an undertaking before this Court within two weeks that they shall hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the disputed land by 15-11-1983.'2. Thus, we see that the learned single Judge has chosen not to assess the merits of the case in t...
State of Gujarat Vs. Shantaben Balubhai Patel and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-10-1993
Reported in: II(1995)ACC207; 1995ACJ172; (1994)1GLR150
S. Nainar Sundaram, C.J. 1. This Letter Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in First Appeal No. 709 of 1982. That was an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. What was noticed by the learned single Judge was not the certificate, evidencing the deposit of the awarded amount, has not been produced. The learned single Judge rightly held that the appeal was incompetent. It is not the claim that such a certificate was produced along with the memorandum of the First Appeal. The relevant proviso to Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is categoric when it says that no appeal by an employer shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by the certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount under the order appealed against. It is difficult for the appellant to get over this mandate of the Statute. In our view, rightly, the le...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Suhasbhai Vadilal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-09-1993
Reported in: [1994]206ITR316(Guj)
Y.B. Bhatt, J. 1. The assessee-respondent was assessed by the Wealth-tax Officer for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1967-68, from which he preferred three separate appeals. These three appeals were disposed of by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax by a common judgment dated March 16, 1977. The assessee again challenged the aforesaid decision by three appeals filed before the Appellate Tribunal being Wealth-tax Appeals Nos. 68 to 70/(Ahmd.) of 1977-78. It is from these appeals that the present reference has arisen. 2. In fact, three separate reference numbers ought to have been given to these proceedings. We, accordingly, direct that they shall be numbered as Wealth-tax References Nos. 29, 29A and 29B of 1980, which are now being decided by the present common judgment and order. 3. We are concerned with two trusts created by the settlor, Shri Vadilal Lallubhai Mehta. The first indenture is dated March 16, 1959, whereunder certain specific shares of a specific value were...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dahyabhai Parshottamdas Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-09-1993
Reported in: [1994]206ITR391(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following three questions to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '(1) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not required to file a declaration in Form No. 12 before June 30, 1973, because by that time, the registration for the previous year was not granted (2) Whether the assessee was bound to file the declaration in Form No. 12 along with the return which was filed after the date of registration for the previous year (3) If the reply to question No. 2 above is in the affirmative, whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in accepting the contention of the assessee that the assessee was under the mistaken belief that even after the death of a partner, Form No. 12 which was signed by him during his lifetime could be utilised after his death by putting thereon the date when it was sought to be filed ?' 2. The assessee-firm ha...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rasiklal Kantilal Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-09-1993
Reported in: [1994]206ITR425(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J. 1. This reference pertains to four assessment years, namely, 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. Four different appeals were filed by the assessee and four cross-appeals were filed by the Revenue against four separate orders passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Even before the Tribunal, four separate applications were filed for making reference to this court. Even then the Tribunal has thought is fit to make only one reference. Really the Tribunal ought to have made four separate references. Since the Tribunal has failed to do so, we direct the office to treat Reference No. 3 of 1980 as reference in respect of the assessment year 1964-65 only and give separate numbers as Income-tax Reference Nos. 3A of 1980, 3B of 1980 and 3C of 1980 to references in respect of the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68, respectively. 2. As the questions which arise for consideration in these four references are the same, they are heard together and disposed of by...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »