Gujarat Court April 1994 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.
Tata Chemicals Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-25-1994
Reported in: (1995)IILLJ957Guj
Ravani, J.1. This letters patent appeal is directed against the interim order dated April 5, 1994 passed by the learned single Judge refusing to grant interim relief and stay the operation and implementation of the notification dated March 17, 1993 issued by the Government of India under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 ('the Act' for short) and the order dated January 20, 1994 issued by the Licensing Officer under the Act. By the aforesaid notification contract labour in the works specified in the Schedule to the notification i.e. limestone and dolomite mines, in the country has bene prohibited. The Schedule to the notification reads as follows :- '(1) Raising of minerals including breaking, sizing, sorting of limestone/dolomite, and (2) Transportation of limestone and dolomite which includes loading into and unloading from trucks, dumpers, conveyance and transportation from mine site to factory.' 2. The learned single judge has admitted the peti...
Dhirajben Hariprasad, Heirs and Lrs. of Late Hariprasad Joravarsinh Vs ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-25-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1623
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This Revision Application arises out of an old litigation which has vexed the parties for over three decades. Now the petitioner seeks direction to quash judgment dated 5-5-1989 passed by the Extra Asstt. Judge, Vadodara upholding the order dated 6-12-1983 passed by the Addl. Small Causes Court, Vadodara in execution proceedings initiated in the year 1965 for execution of a compromise decree passed in the year 1963.2. Non-petitioner No. 1, who will now be referred to as the original plaintiff had filed Rent Suit for possession of the premises described in para 1 of the plaint, situated in Gajrawadi in the City of Vadodara against deceased Joravarsinh Chhatrasinh, who was the father-in-law of the present petitioner-Dhirajben Hariprasad, who will now be referred to as original defendant. The said suit registered as Civil Suit No. 741 of 1963, was decreed as compromise decree dated 7-11-1963. As per the compromise the defendant was allowed two years time for vacating the...
Shantaben Ratilal and ors. Vs. Appropriate Authority and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-1994
Reported in: (1994)121CTR(Guj)6; [1995]212ITR95(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J.1. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 were the co-owners of final plot No. 718 in T. P. Scheme No. 28, admeasuring 834 square metres (997 square yards) (hereinafter referred to as 'the said property'). They purchased the land by a registered sale deed dated July 24, 1985, for a consideration of Rs. 6,13,364 (at the rate of Rs. 615 per square yard). After the purchase of the land, they constructed a super-structure specially suited to automobile business in which their husbands were interested and who were doing business at Anand. However, the husbands of the petitioners were not interested in developing their business at Ahmedabad. On October 20, 1993, petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 entered into a written agreement of sale with petitioner No. 6, which is a public limited company, for a consideration of Rs. 64 lakhs in respect of the said property. Before that, the said property was got evaluated through a Government Approved Values who valued it at Rs. 62,93,000. 2. The petitioner submitted...
Prajapati Keshavlal Amratlal Vs. Shailesh Kumar Kanailal Sharma and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-21-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR250
D.G. Karia, J.1. The petitioner who is the original plaintiff of Special Civil Suit No. 242 of 1988 on the file of the Civil Judge, Section D., Mahesana has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated December 19, 1988 passed by the learned trial Judge dismissing the suit on the ground of not paying the Court fees, though the plaintiff was allowed to sue as an indigent person.2. Relevant facts giving rising to the petition may be briefly stated as under:The petitioner, class IV employee working as a peon in Mahesana is a tenant of the premises situated at Tarachand Jadav's Khadki in Mahesana on monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. Opponent No. 2, the original defendant is the landlord of the said premises. It transpires from the pleadings of the said suit that the petitioner as a tenant, has been paying regular rent to the defendent No. 2. However, the defendant No. 2 tried to evict the petitioner by adopting unfair and illegal means. The defendant No. 2 disconnected electric power s...
Rajeshkumar Jayantilal Joshi Vs. Govindbhai K. Shekhda and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-21-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1783
S.M. Soni, J.1. Rule was issued in this petition by this Court on 7-3-1994. Ad-interim relief in terms of para 31(c) was also granted. In view of the same, respondents have filed their affidavits-in-reply and petitioner has filed rejoinder. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, the matter is finally heard today.2.1. Here is a University, which is going to be, according to respondent No. 1 its Vice-Chancellor, destitute if respondent No. 2 is not given charge of Registrar even for a period of three months. Here is a University, who finds dearth of persons for appointment to the post of Registrar, except the respondent No. 2. This business is poses eagerness and anxiety in view of the following facts:2.2. Respondent No. 2 was appointed as Registrar somewhere in the month of February, 1984. He had committed number of irregularities and illegalities in discharge of his duties as the Registrar of the University. As Courts are the temple of justice, Universities are the ...
Gauribhai Somabhai AmIn and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-21-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR624
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The order passed by and on behalf of the respondent on 22nd June 1987 under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('the Ceiling Act' for brief) is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thereby the respondent revised the order passed by the Competent Authority at Ahmedabad on 8th March 1983 and declared the holding of petitioner No. 6 to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 1478 sq. mts.2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. Petitioners Nos. 1, 6 and 7 are brothers (the brothers for convenience). Petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 are sons of petitioner No. 1 and petitioners Nos. 8 and 9 are sons of petitioner No. 7. The three brothers appear to have purchased one consolidated parcel of land bearing Survey No. 337/1+2+3 in all admeasuring 10622 sq. mts. situated at Bodakdev within the Urban Agglomeration of Ahmedabad (the disputed land for convenience) on 28th January 1972 under a d...
State of Gujarat Vs. Shambhubhai Jivrambhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-21-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR803
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. This appeal filed through the instrumentality of the State of Gujarat by the Food Inspector, Ahmedabad, is directed against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 15-9-1992 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 8, Ahmedabad rendered in Criminal Case No. 1 of 1987 wherein the respondent Shambhubhai Jivrambhai Patel, who came to be tried for the alleged offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 was ordered to be acquitted on the short ground, viz., that when the case was called out, the complainant was absent.2. On going through the impugned judgment, prima facie two remissness, firstly on the part of the learned Magistrate and thereafter on the part of Complainant-Food Inspector surfaces. They are; the learned Magistrate has committed a patent and obvious error in throwing away the case merely on the ground that Complainant-Food Inspector was absent when the matter was call...
Petlad Bulakhidas Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramabhai Bhikhabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-19-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR723; (1995)IILLJ1240Guj
Pandya, J.1. This petition is filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of a matter dealt with by the Labour Court and later on in appeal by the Industrial Court under the provisions of B.I.R. Act, 1946. 2. The Labour Court at Anand passed an order on 17-12-1992 in Application No. 809 of 1976 against which Appeal No. 4 of 1993 was filed in the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad and said appeal was disposed of by the Industrial Court on 20-4-1993. Needless to say that both the forums, the petitioner had lost. 3. The petitioner mill had entered into an agreement as per Annexure-A page 22 with the representative union. It is an admitted position that the parties are governed by the provisions of B.I.R. Act to the extent to which there are provisions in it. As a part of agreement arrived at between the management and union, on 4-5-1976 the respondent herein - Ramabhai Bhikhabhai was to be sent home because the third shift was closed and the plant in which he was workin...
State of Gujarat Vs. ThA. Somaji Jamaji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-19-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ3458; (1995)1GLR548
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. These three appeals for the enhancement of sentence by the State of Gujarat are directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 20-1-1993, passed by Mr. K.K. Vaisya, the learned J.M.F.C., Kadi; rendered in three different criminal cases being numbers 1026/92, 1027/92 and 1400/92, wherein respondent Tha. Somaji Jamaji, who came to be tried for the alleged offences punishable under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (for shorts Act) on his pleading guilty, was convicted for the same and sentenced till rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs. 20/ - in each case, and in default, to undergo further SI for two days.2. To state prosecution case briefly - the respondent on three different dates viz. 7-2-1992 at 23-50 hours, 5-3-1992 at 11-45 hours, and 19-5-1992 at 13-45 hours, was found in possession of illicit liquor of the quantity - 2 litres, 16 litres and 2 litres respectively in the public place at Nadi. Thereafter, when challaned before the c...
M.A. Pathan Wd/O A.S. Pathan and ors. Vs. Employees State Insurance Co ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ308
Shethna, J.1. The appellants have challenged in this Appeal the impugned judgment and order dated 13-7-1993 passed by the E.S.I. Court, Ahmedabad dismissing the Application (E.S.I.) No. 45 of 1990. Appellant No. 1 is the widow of Ahemadkhan and appellants Nos. 2 to 6 are the minor children of the deceased. 2. The deceased Ahemadkhan was working as a Labourer in New Manekchowk Textile Mills Ltd. On 4-4-1990 he attended the duty at 3-30 p.m. to 12 midnight. While returning from his duty in the midnight hours he was assaulted by the mob during the communal riots, which took place in Ahmedabad on that day and he was stabbed and because of that he died there and then. Ibrahim Abdulla Exh. 12, co-worker of the deceased was also going with him. He witnessed the incident but he managed to escape. F.I.R. was lodged on that very day of the incident by unarmed Head Constable Mr. Pandya before the police and the inquest Panchnama was also prepared on that very day. Maherunisha, widow of deceased A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »