Gujarat Court February 1995 Judgments
Mavjibhai Parbatbhai Trapasia and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR280
M.R. Calla, J.1. As the facts narrated hereinafter would show that both these matters are required to be decided by a common order as they relate to the proceedings about the same land and accordingly, both these Special Civil Applications are decided by this common order.2. The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 6194 of 1984 formed a partnership firm, in the name and style of M/s. Khedut Sarvoday Company, through a partnership deed dated 21st January 1975. The said partnership firm owned and possessed plot Nos. 19 to 24, 29 to 32, 42, 43, 61 to 67, 70 to 74 in Survey No. 481/2, admeasuring 12,919.6 sq.mtrs. at Rajkot. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short) came into force on 17th February 1976. Before the said Act commenced, the aforesaid partnership firm was dissolved by a document dated 4th December 1975. However, the Form No. 1 was filed under Section 6 of the Act by the firm on 12th September 1976. The Competent Authority finalised the pr...
Tag this Judgment!M.D. Gohil Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-1995
Reported in: (1996)3GLR134
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Rule. Service of Rule is waived by Mr. A.G. Uraizee, learned AG.P. for respondent-State.Upon very short but interesting question which has come in the surface of the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is as to whether there is violation of principle of natural justice in a situation like one on hand, where hearing is done by one officer and the decision is rendered by another officer thereto.2. In order to appreciate the merits of the aforesaid aspect, it would be necessary to set out a few relevant necessary facts giving rise to this petition. The husband of the petitioner during his life time had submitted an application for exemption under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1954 (for short Act') to the respondent-authority on 11-8-1976. Other documents were also filed in support of the said application. During pendency of the proceedings, the husband of the petitioner died on 29-1-1986. The respondent-State rejec...
Tag this Judgment!Kantibhai Atmaram Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR710
K.R. Vyas, J. 1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for correcting the date of birth of the petitioner as 1-3-1938 or 28-2-1938 in the service record and to calculate the year of Superannuation of the service on the basis of the said date of birth. 2. The petitioner was selected as clerk on the basis of his having passed the Secondary School Certificate Examination and at the time of selection, he was required to produce the secondary school examination certificate. The certificate issued by the Secondary School Certificate Examination Board, dated lst July, 1957 shows the petitioner's birth date 28-2-1937, and on the basis of the same, the said date was recorded as his birth date in his service record. The petitioner after having passed the Lower Revenue Qualifying Examination was promoted as Deputy Mamlatdar in the year 1980. It is the case of petitioner that in the year 1990, the petitioner checked his birth date in the school leaving certif...
Tag this Judgment!Vishandas Gangaram Khatri Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-1995
Reported in: (1996)2GLR261
M.R. Calla, J.1. The petitioner's case is that he was a resident of village Chachro, District Tharparkar in Pakistan which forms part of Pakistan since 14th August 1947. During the Indo-Pak Conflict in the year 1971, a portion of Tharparkar was occupied by the Indian Army and the area was under the control of Indian Army till 22nd December 19722. It is the case of the petitioner that some of the Hindus who were residents of this area migrated to India while the Muslims of this area went back to Pakistan when the area was handed over to Pakistan, following the Simla Pact of 1972. It is the further case of the petitioner that he was in the service of Pakistan Government from 16th August 1952 to 16th February 1972 and following the outbreak of the Indo-Pak Conflict in 1971, the petitioner left his job from Thatta (Sind) on 17th February 1972 and joined his family at Chachro on 19th February 1972. The petitioner was appointed as Patwari-cum-clerk on 22nd February 1972 by the Civil Administ...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmalsinhji Mamubha Jadeja Vs. District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-1995
Reported in: (1996)4GLR459
N.N. Mathur, J.1. Rule.2. Mr. D.C. Dave and Mr. Y.M. Thakkar, learned Assistant Government Pleaders waives service of Rule. Looking to the urgency of the matters the Rule is taken for hearing today.3. The question for consideration which arises for consideration in this group of petitions can be formulated thus:Whether the licensing authority under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959, has power to suspend all licences granted under the Act, by general order?4. FACTS:Spl. C.A. Nos. 571 and 594 of 1995In these two Special Civil Applications the respective petitioners have challenged the order dated 9-1-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City suspending the licence of the licence-holders and requiring them to surrender their licence of arms. The say of the petitioners is that they are the owners of the Industrial Unit, viz., Rajesh Silk Mills and said Industrial Unit is engaged in the business of manufacture of Art Silk etc. They further say that their Industrial Unit pos...
Tag this Judgment!V.M. Modi Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-1995
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas871(Guj)
J.M. Panchal, J.1. By means of filing this application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the petitioner who is the original accused has prayed to quash Criminal Case No. 760 of 1994 instituted in the court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, by respondent No. 2 regarding the alleged commission of offence punishable under section 621A of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. One Mrs. Pushpaben Sumantrai Nayak holds five equity shares of Rs. 10 each of Atul Products Ltd. jointly with her husband, Mr. Sumantrai Gopalji Nayak. On November 30, 1990. Mrs. Pushpaben executed four deeds for transferring one equity share each in favour of : A. (1) Pushpaben Sumantrai Nayak herself, (2) Sumantrai Gopalji Nayak, (3) Dipak Jayantilal Shah, B. (1) Pushpaben Sumantrai Nayak, (2) Dipak Jayantilal Shah, (3) Sumantrai Gopalji Nayak, C. (1) Pushpaben Sumantrai Nayak, (2) Dipika Ramanlal Shah, (3) Sumantrai Gopalji Nayak, and D. (1) Pushpaben Sumantrai Nayak...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit D. Padival Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-1995
Reported in: (1995)1GLR911
Mehta, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal against summary rejection of the Special Civil Application, challenges the action of the High Court on administrative side in selecting and recommending the names for appointment to the posts of City Civil Judges and District Judges in Gujarat by way of direct recruitment. The challenge is based on the following grounds :- (a) That the selection is arbitrary and denies equality of opportunity to all eligible and equally situated persons because all them have not been invited for consideration; (b) That under Art. 233 of the Constitution of India, the decision is required to be taken by the Full Court on administrative side and in the present case, the decision cannot be said to have been taken by the Full Court; (c) That the selection is arbitrary and that the said decision suffers from favouritism and nepotism; (d) That the learned single Judge has erred in holding that, Arts. 14 and 16 cannot be invoked and extended to a constitutional post ...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Nabuben and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ1112; AIR1996Guj48
Mehta, J.1. The respondents-claimants are the heirs and dependents of Bhikhabhai Talsaji. He was the owner of a Matador station-wagon bearing No. GTD 3999 which was driven by his driver Chikabhai Lakhabhai. The motor vehicle accident occurred near Bhimkundi Talavadi between the Matador station-wagon and the Bus of the appellant - S.T. Corporation bearing No. GTD 5862. As a result of the said accident the owner of the station-wagon Bhikhabhai Talsaji died. His heirs and dependents filed a claim case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal against the S.T. Corporation.2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the drivers of both the vehicles were equally negligent and responsible for the accident for the head-on collision. The Tribunal also held that the negligence on the part of the two drivers would be composite negligence and that there cannot be any question of slashing down compensation amount payable in proportion to the negligence of the driver of the veh...
Tag this Judgment!The Patani Uttar Gujarat Co-operative Housing Society, Ahmedabad Vs. S ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Guj213; (1996)1GLR539
ORDERM.R. Calla, J.1. This Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner, seeking a direction for the grant of permission to the petitioner under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short) for the land in village Ghatlodiya, bearing Survey No. 19 admeasuring 18717 sq. mtrs.; for quashing the order dated 1-1-1993 passed by the District Collector, whereby the permission was granted to the respondent No. 5 for the sale of the land in question to the Society respondent No. 6; to declare that order Annexure G passed by the Competent Authority and Additional Collector, dated 5-8-1993 is null and void and to declare the action of the Authority in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 20 to be illegal.2. The petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society and it had entered into an agreement with the respondent No. 5 to purchase-the land in question on 10th June, 1987 and a sum of Rs. 6,2...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit D. Padival Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-1995
Reported in: (1995)1GLR889
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (hereafter mentioned as 'Constitution' for short) involves the consideration of the controversy concerning the recommendation of eligible persons made by the High Court in December 1994, for the appointments to the posts of District Judges and Ahmedabad City Civil Court Judges, under Article 233 of the Constitution. The petition contains mainly two grounds, namely, (a) the alleged denial of equal opportunity of being considered for the said offices under Article 16 of the Constitution; and (b) the recommendations allegedly not being made by the Full Court contrary to the requirement of Article 233. During the course of the arguments, two more grounds were also pressed, namely, (c) regarding the relevant rules being in derogation of the authority of the High Court under Article 233; and (d) regarding the procedure followed in the matter of actual selection.2. The petitioner is an Advocate practising in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »