Gujarat Court August 1994 Judgments
VipIn T. Mehta Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Petrochemica ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1456
Shah, J.1. Rule. Mr. S. N. Shelat, waives service of rue on behalf of respondents. With the Consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, the mattes were finally heard in December, 1993 and are now being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. These three petitions are field by three different officers, then serving in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited (I.P.C.L.) challenging the action of the respondent Corporation in rejecting the request of each petitioner to extend and grant the benefits of Voluntary Retirement Scheme and for is suance of further direction to the respondent Corporation to make payment of such benefits. At the outset it must be noted that neither in the memo of original petition not by further challenges introduced way of amendment of the petitioner, the legality or validity of any of the provisions of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme or subsequent guidelines or policy prescribed for applicability of such scheme, is challenged. The challenges cen...
Tag this Judgment!Divaliben Vs. Mavjibhai Vasanjibhai Ahir
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-25-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Guj151
A.N. Divecha, J. 1. Does any or every defect in the procedure call for interference by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (the Tribunal for convenience) with the appellate order in exercise of its powers under Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act for brief) irrespective of the fact whether or not such defect is in consequential and whether or not no miscarriage of justice has occasioned thereby? This is the main question that has cropped up in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness of the decision rendered by the Tribunal on 12th November, 1980 in Revision Application No. TEN.B.S. 222 of 1979. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The respondent herein moved an application under Section 70(b) of the Act for his declaration as a tenant in respect of some five parcels of land bearing Survey Nos. 129 admeasuring 1 acre 32 gunthas, 130 (Part) admeasuring 3 acres 17 gunthas, 63 ad...
Tag this Judgment!Prashant Manvantrai Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-19-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR780
Gokhale, J.1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Dave for the petitioner and Mrs. Vasavadatta A. Bhatt for the respondents. The petitioner was appointed as a driver under second respondent-Urban Land Tribunal by the order dated 10-11-1989. The condition No. 1 of appointment order states that the said appointment was only for one year on a probationary basis. These conditions are in Gujarati. The paragraph prior thereto, however, uses the English word 'probation'. The petitioner was given an extension for a period of six months by order dated 28-11-1989. The said letter also says that the petitioner's probationary period was being extended by further six months. The services of the petitioner were subsequently terminated before the expiry of the said period of six months by order dated 9-5-1990 stating therein that his services were not required. The said order of terminate is challenged in this petition. 2. I have heard Mr. Dave in support of the petition who has made various submissions. Firstly, he ha...
Tag this Judgment!Dilavarsinh Khodubha Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-19-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Guj54; (1994)2GLR1564
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. A Division Bench, by its order dated 23rd June, 1994, has referred the question as to whether petitions, against an order of the Tribunal under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'), when purported to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in conjunction with Article 227 or otherwise, and where a writ in the nature of certiorari is prayed for, are maintainable, for consideration of the larger Bench in view of the two decisions of this Court cited before it on behalf of the respondent-State in Himatlal K. Parekh v. Competent Authority and Deputy Collector (ULC), Rajkot, (1990) 1 Guj LH 446 : (AIR 1990 Guj 130), and in Jashubhai Hiralal Gandhi v. Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, Ahmeda-bad, (199) 2 Guj LH 609. Relying on these decisions, a contention was urged that an order passed by the Tribunal under the said Act can only be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and,...
Tag this Judgment!Kasambhai Hothibhai Chania Vs. General Manager, Gujarat State Road Tra ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-19-1994
Reported in: (1995)2GLR1396
M.R. Calla, J.1. The petitioner was a conductor in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. He was dismissed from the service of the Corporation on 6th November 1968. Against this order of dismissal, the petitioner filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 163 of 1971. The trial Court decreed the suit in his favour on 18th August, 1972. Against this judgment and decree, the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation preferred a Regular Appeal being Appeal No. 48 of 1972 which was allowed on 25-6-1976 and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside. Against the order dated 25-6-1976 passed by the appellate Court, the present petitioner preferred Second Appeal before this Court being Appeal No. 414 of 1976 and this Appeal was allowed in favour of the petitioner on 24th April, 1980 and the trial Court's judgment and decree dated 18th August, 1972 was restored. However, neither the petitioner reported for duty before the Corporation nor the Corporation passed any order in compliance of the decree w...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Nagrik Sahkari Grahak Bhandar Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-18-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Guj184
ORDERR.A. Mehta, J.1. By a show cause notice dated 29-5-1992 (annexure A), the petitioner was called upon to explain the misconduct and irregularities and to show cause against the cancellation of the authorisation of fair price shop. The petitioner filed a detailed reply and the Collector, by his order dated 1-12-1992, cancelled the petitioner's authorisation for the fair price shop and forfeited the deposit of Rs.500/-. Revision against the same came to be dismissed.2. Apart from the fact that the authorisation is a matter of contract and for breach of contract, the remedy is by way of a suit for damages and the petition is not maintainable; there is otherwise also, no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner.3. The first contention of the petitioner is that no particulars are given in the show cause notice. However, the petitioner has not produced the tabular statement furnished to the petitioner along with the show cause notice and this material has been suppressed....
Tag this Judgment!Vadodara Mazdoor Congress, Baroda Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1898; (1995)2GLR971
B.N. Kirpal, C.J.1. This is an application, alleging that the respondents have committed contempt of Court and that action should be taken against them. 2. It appears that there was a dispute between the parties which was the subject matter of an Award of the Industrial Tribunal on a reference having been made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said Award was challenged by the respondents by filing a writ petition in this Court, but without success. As the terms of the Award had not been complied with by the respondents, the petitioner herein filed an application for contempt. At the hearing of the same, an undertaking was given by the respondents that subject to the outcome of the Special Leave Petition, which had been filed, the respondent shall comply with the terms of the Award and the judgment of this Court, upholding the Award. 3. The Special leave Petition has been dismissed. According to the Respondents, they have complied with the terms of the Award, in as mu...
Tag this Judgment!Kalpanaben M. Shah and ors. Vs. Navinchandra Jeevanlal Acharya and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-1994
Reported in: II(1996)ACC543; 1996ACJ113; AIR1995Guj176
ORDERK.R. Vyas, J.1. The petitioners on this group of Applications are the original applicants in a group of eleven petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Valsad at Navsari for compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,999/ -. It was the case of the applicants in all the petitions that they were travelling in a Matador towards Saputara and when they reached village Baj, all of a sudden, an ST bus came from the opposite direction driven by the original opponent No. 1 (respondent No. 1 herein) in an excessive speed, rashly and negligently and dashed with the Matador as a result of which the petitioners were seriously injured, and therefore, the claim for damages as prayed for in their respective petitions. The learned M.A.C. Tribunal by his common judgment and award dismissed the petitions against which the present petitioners (original applicants) have preferred the respective appeals. Since the amount of compensation claimed was below Rs. 10,000/- the appeals have been converted ...
Tag this Judgment!Nitinkumar Pramodbhai Pandya Vs. Spenta Colour Lab Private Ltd. and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-1994
Reported in: (1996)1GLR14
B.N. Kirpal, C.J.1. This is an application under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, praying for action being taken against the respondents on the alleged non-compliance with the order, dated 26th of July, 1994, passed by the Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad.2. On an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 being filed, an order was passed on 26th of July, 1994, which order is alleged to have been disobeyed.The case of disobedience seems to be that the representation, which was filed, was not decided within the prescribed time.3. When an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 is decided, then the Code of Civil Procedure itself provides for the consequence of disobedience or breach of an injunction which is granted. Rule 2A was inserted in Order 39 with effect from 1st of February, 1977 with a view to giving the Court power to take action on account of the breach of the order passed by it. Therefore, the appropriate procedure for the alleged non-compliance of an orde...
Tag this Judgment!Harendra M. Parekh Vs. Superintendent District Jail and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-12-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1847
ORDERA.P. Ravani, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of order dated March 8, 1982 passed by the State Government of Gujarat in Civil Supplies Department. By this order it is directed that the original detenus, namely, Shri Mavinchandra Zaveri, Shri Dhanraj Fakrichand Zaveri, Shri Dipak Fakirchand Zaveri and Shri Satishchandra Kantilal Zaveri had committed breach of conditions of the order of parole. Thus they had contravened the provisions of Section 15(5) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 ('the Act' for short). Therefore it was decided to forfeit the amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) deposited by (sic) each of them as and by way of penalty. Pursuant to this order the Superintendent of' District Jail, wrote letter dated March 15, 1982 addressed to the surety, i.e the petitioner herein, that the entire amount of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) deposited by him has been forfeited t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »