Gujarat Court May 1995 Judgments
Patel Ashokkumar Babulal Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-1995
Reported in: (1996)2GLR535
J.M. Panchal, J.1. In all these petitions which are instituted under Art. 226 of the Constitution, common questions of facts and law arise for the consideration of the Court. The petitioners have been appointed as Lecturers on ad hoc basis and by way of stopgap arrangement in the subject of Applied Mechanics. Therefore, at the request of and with the consent of learned Counsels appearing in these petitions the petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Each of the petitioners has prayed to issue as writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from terminating his services. The petitioner in each petition has also prayed to direct the respondents to regularise/confirm his services as Lecturer with all other consequential and incidental benefits. For recruitment to the post of Lecturer in Engineering/Technology/Humanities/Science (in different disciplines) in the Gujarat Educational Service Class-II (Collegiate Branch) fo...
Tag this Judgment!Kiran Industries Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-1995
Reported in: (1995)2GLR1158
A.N. Divecha, J.1. Common question of fact and law are found arising in both these matters. We have, therefore, thought it fit to dispose of all these matters by this common judgment of ours.2. Appeal from Order No. 505 of 1990 (the main matter) is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) at Mehsana on 28th November 1990 below the application at Exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 85 of 1989. Thereby the learned trial Judge has granted an interim injunction against disconnection of electric connection No. A-683 for non-payment of one bill No. 211747 dt. 10-2-1989 for Rs. 1,11,590.60 ps. on condition of deposit of Rs. 50,000 and also on furnishing of bond and surety for Rs. 42,000 within 15 days from the date of the order.3. Appeal from Order No. 165 of 1994 (the second matter for convenience) is directed against the order passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) at Mehsana on 18th May 1994 below the application at Exh. 6 in Special Civil Suit No. 103 o...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Pollution Control Board Vs. Aegies Chemicals and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-1995
Reported in: (1995)2GLR1691
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. This Criminal Revision Application at the instance of Mr. D.K. Solanki, Assistant Law Officer, 'Gujarat Pollution Control Board, Gandhinagar' is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 30-8-1993, rendered in Criminal Case No. 1362 of 1990 by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, whereby Messrs. Aegies Chemicals, a Partnership firm, having its factory situated at G1DC, Vatva, Ahmedabad and two of its partners, who came to be prosecuted for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 43 and 44 read with Section 47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 were ordered to be 'discharged' on the alleged ground that prima facie case was not made out.2. Messrs. B.R. Gupta, the learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner-Board and Mr. J.A. Shelat, the learned A.P.P. while challenging the impugned order, submitted that the same being ex-facie illegal and perverse, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.3. On going ...
Tag this Judgment!Gurudatt Villa Association Vs. Appropriate Authority and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR522(Guj)
C.K. Thakker, J. 1. Rule, Mr. Mihir Thakor, instructed by R. P. Bhatt and Co., appears and waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. Mr. N. R. Divetia, appears for respondent No. 2 and waives service of rule on his behalf. In the facts and circumstance of the case, the matter is taken up for final hearing to day. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ, direction and/or order quashing and setting aside orders, annexures 'G' and 'H' passed by the appropriate authority, respondent No. 1 herein, under section 269UE(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), being illegal, ultra vires and contrary to law. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that Kanaiyalal Ganapatram Upadhyay, respondent No. 2, entered into an agreement to sell his property to the petitioner bearing final plot No. 6 Town Planning Scheme No. III of Usmanpura admeasuring 420 sp. yds. with old construction of 98.80 sq. mts. Banabhat was entered into on May 12...
Tag this Judgment!Shantadevi Pratapsingh Gaekwad and anr. Vs. Shrimant Sangramsingh Prat ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Guj72
A.N. Divecha, J.1. A battle royal, in the true sense of the word, if without bloodshed, has vehemently been fought in this Court. Weapons of warfare have been books, documents and oral arguments. The battleline was drawn between one son of the Royal Family of Gaekwad on the one side and his mother and his elder brother on the other. The earlier venue was the Court of the Civil Judge (S.D.) at Vadodara. The cause of the fight has been partition of the properties left behind by the former Ruler of Baroda by the name of Maharaja Fatesinhrao Gaekwad.2. The appeal from order has arisen from the order passed by the learned trial Judge on 7th August, 1992 below the application at Exhibit-5 in Special Civil Suit No. 725 of 1991. The revisional application is directed against the order passed by the same learned trial Judge on the same day below the application at Exhibit-6 in the very special suit. By his order below the application at Exhibit-5, the learned trial Judge has granted a sort of i...
Tag this Judgment!Champaklal Narsidas Shah (Since Decd.) Through His Heirs Chandrakant a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-1995
Reported in: (1995)2GLR1078
S.D. Dave, J.1. Rule. Learned Counsel Mr. Y.N. Ravani, waives the service of the Rule for the respondent No. 1. On the oral request coming from learned Counsel Mr. S.M. Shah for the petitioners, the respondent No. 2 is ordered to be transposed as the petitioner. Learned Counsel Mr. Shah undertakes to file the appearance on her behalf.2. The substantial question which falls for my consideration is as to whether when the application to adopt the procedure under Order 8 Rule 10 C.P.C. is preferred by a party to the suit, can the Court straightway pass a decree, without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other side.3. The question as indicated above arises in the following facts and circumstances. The original plaintiff, Vinthaldas Thakkar had instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 277 of 1984 before the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Bhavnagar, against the defendant Champaklal Shah. The dispute between the parties was a limited one, namely, whether the defendant should be pr...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shirinbai Dungaji Daruwala Since Decd. by Her Heirs Aspi Dungaji ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-1995
Reported in: (1996)4GLR455
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The order passed by the competent authority at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 1 herein) on 20th January 1986 under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('the Act' for brief) as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 2 herein) on 6th January 1989 in Appeal No. Ahmedabad-164 of 1986 is under challenge in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, respondent No. 1 declared the holding of the deceased predecessor-in-title of the petitioners to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 595.51 sq. mtrs.2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioners are heirs and legal representatives of one Smt. Shririnbai Dungaji Daruwala (the deceased for convenience). She held certain properties within the urban agglomeration of Ahmedabad on the date of the coming into force of the Act. She, therefore, filed the necessary decl...
Tag this Judgment!ismail Noormohmad Mehta and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR549
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner who are ex-members of the outgoing elected body which was formerly Sihor Nagar Panchayat, now converted into Municipal Borough under the provisions of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, have preferred this petition praying for setting aside the demarcation of wards made by the Gujarat State Election Commission-respondent No. 2 herein, under the Notification dated 26th October, 1994 at Annexure 'A' to the petition. A direction is sought on the respondents to demarcate wards and allocate reserved seats as suggested by the petitioners.2. Sihor Nagar Panchayat was converted into Sihor Nagarpalika by a notification dated 15th April, 1994. As per the last census of 1991, population of Sihor Nagarpalika is 33,255. Nagarpalika was devided into 9 wards and allocated 27 seats by a notification dated 14th October, 1994. This notification was issued by the State Government under Section 7(2) of the said Act. The respondent No. 2 published preliminary notifi...
Tag this Judgment!Madhuben Maganlal Raychuri Vs. Ramchandra Bechardas and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR727
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The present revision under Section 29 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act) is directed against the Judgment and Decree recorded in H.R.P. Suit No. 238 of 1974 by the Court of Small Causes, Ahmedabad and confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 302 of 1978 by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad.2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff who instituted above suit for declaration that she is the tenant of the suit premises bearing Municipal Census No. 2/112/5 situated in Jahangirpura Revenue Scheme in Bhogilal's Chawl No. 2 and also for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff in the enjoyment of the suit premises. The plaintiff also prayed for fixation of standard rent. According to the case of the original plaintiff suit premises belonged to opponents-original defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and that original defendant No. 5, one Gokul Mohan who was the tenant in the suit prem...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›