Gujarat Court January 1996 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.
Suo Motu Vs. A.N. Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: (1999)1GLR8
B.C. Patel, J.1. In Special Civil Application No. 7111 of 1995, the Court issued notice to respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, named hereunder which was made returnable on 17th October 1995.1. The State of Gujarat to be served through the Secretary, Revenue Department, New Secretariat, Gandhinagar.2. Officer on Special Duty, Land Acquisition No. 1's office, Ratnakar Building, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380 009.3. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, Office at Udyog Bhavan, Gandhinagar.2. Learned Advocate for the petitioners took direct service. Clerk of the learned Advocate has filed affidavits stating that the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are served. On 17-10-1995, learned A.G.P. Mr. Desai, presumably under the bona fide belief that as per the affidavit respondents are served in accordance with law, requested the Court to grant some time so that he can have instructions in the matter. On 20-10-1995, learned Advocate for the petitioners made a statement that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are se...
Patel Mahendrakumar Maganlal Vs. Saijpur Bogha Municipality and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)2GLR742
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The Counsel for the petitioners is unable to let to know this Court as to what ultimately happened to the Civil Suit No. 53 of 1983. 2. The petitioners filed this petition before this Court wherein the prayer made that respondents No. 1 & 2 be directed to allow them to join the duties forthwith as per the appointment letter. The prayer for interim relief has also been made. Thereafter further prayers have been made that respondent No. 3 be directed that the hearing of the said application made in Regular Civil Suit No. 53 of 1983 be pre-emptorily heard and the matter be decided urgently. Further, prayers have been made that the judgment and decree passed in said Regular Civil Suit No. 53 of 1983 on 30th December 1983 be declared to be not binding on the petitioners and further prayed for issuance of injunction from enforcing the judgment and decree dated 30th December 1983.3. First of all, I constrain to observe that the...
Gamanbhai Purshottambhai Patel and anr. Vs. Jivanbhai Purshottambhai P ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-1996
Reported in: (1996)1GLR771
S.D. Shah, J.1. Admit. Mr. R.N. Shah appears for opponents and waives service of admission. Printing is dispensed with. With the consent of learned Advocates appearing for the parties matter is finally heard and disposed of by this judgment.2. This Second Appeal is preferred by original defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Asst. Judge, Navsari, dated 30-9-1995 in Reg. Civil Appeal No. 140 of 1986 whereby he allowed the appeal of the appellant-defendants and quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in favour of respondent-plaintiffs and remanded the matter to the trial Court with direction to raise proper and legal issues after considering the pleadings and submissions of the rival parties. The learned Asst. Judge also directed the trial Court Judge to afford sufficient opportunity to lead oral as well as documentary evidence to the parties of the suit in support of their allegations and also directed that the parties were at...
Balkrushna V. Oza and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR788
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties. The petitioners by this writ petition had challenged the proposed decision of the respondents to revert them from the post of Police Sub-Inspector to the post of Head Constable. The order of reversion has not been filed. On the apprehension of the reversion this writ petition has been filed. On 19th July 1983 the notice was issued in this case to the respondents and ad interim relief in terms of para 17(d) has been granted. When the order of reversion has not been filed, how the question does arise of quashing of the same? It was a case which has been filed at a premature stage only on the apprehension of reversion. I fail to see any reason in the action of the petitioners in approaching to this Court in haste. They should have approached this Court only after when the order of reversion is passed. The possible apprehension of the petitioners that after passing of the order of reversion this Court may not pass the order staying...
L.J. Kuvad Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR665
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The petitioner filed this writ petition in which a prayer has been made that the order dated 9th August 1982 at Annexure-A to the petition by which the petitioner was promoted at Vasavad or any consequential order passed be quashed. It is further prayed that the respondent be directed to accommodate the petitioner either at Jetpur or even at Dhoraji on the promotional post of Senior Assistant. A prayer for interim relief has been made which reads as follows:(D) to issue an injunction restraining the 2nd respondent, his subordinates and servants and agents including respondent Nos. 3 and 4 from enforcing and implementing the said order Annexure-A so far as the petitioner is concerned and further not to relieve the petitioner from his post at Jetpur, pending hearing and final disposal of this petition;2. The writ petition came up for admission before this Court on 17th February 1983 and a notice was issued and it has been ordered that the status quo to be maintained. O...
Gangaben Ishwarlal Bhagat Vs. Somabhai Maganbhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR76
S.D. Shah, J.1. This First Appeal was admitted by N.J. Pandya, J. on 7th July, 1995. It is directed against the order passed below Obstruction Application No. 154 of 1993 and Obstruction Removal Application No. 7 of 1994. The impugned order is passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Surat dated 27-4-1995 whereby the executing Court has rejected prayer for injunction against execution of warrant for possession. In this Court the appellant has obtained ex-parte stay of such order by filing C.A. No. 2329 of 1995. The original auction-purchasers as well as decree-holders have filed C.A. No. 5781 of 1995 for vacating such ex-parte order. By order passed on 12-12-1995 on C.A. No. 5781 of 1995 the final hearing of this F.A. was fixed with consent of rival parties and the preparation of paper-book was dispensed with. The First Appeal was thereafter heard finally and is being disposed of by this judgment.2. One Gangaben Ishwarlal Bhagat who happens to be the daughter of one Benkorben and sister of Ka...
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. J.N. Valand
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR146
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Shelat in this case is that even if the Tribunal has considered that the punishment of dismissal from service awarded to the workman is disproportionate and harsh but it was not substituted by any other punishment. It has further been contended by Shri Shelat that the workman has committed a serious misconduct of not issuing tickets to the passengers though the money had been taken from them. It is a case of misappropriation of Corporation money. This charge has been proved and the Labour Court has also accepted the same. Shri Shelat next contended that misappropriation of money by the conductor may be of a meagre amount but that could not be a consideration not to give any punishment whatsoever. Shri Shelat further contended that the Labour Court should not have allowed the workman to go without any penalty though he has committed a serious misconduct.2. I have considered the submissions made ...
Shantilal H. Surati Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahme ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-11-1996
Reported in: (1996)2GLR828
M.R. Calla, J.1. Rule. Mr. P.J. Patel, learned counsel, waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. On the request of both the sides, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.3. The petitioner, who was working as a conductor with Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, was sought to be dismissed after an inquiry and an order of dismissal was passed on 14-10-1993. In view of the fact that certain disputed concerning the petitioner were pending at the time of passing the order, the Corporation moved an application seeking approval of the dismissal order under S. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. The application was apposed by the petitioner on several grounds including the ground that the mandatory requirement under the proviso to S. 33(2)(b) had not been followed and the payment made for one month's wages was falling short by a sum of Rs. 60.45 Ps. as an amount pay...
Munshiram D. Anand Vs. Pravinsinh Prabhatsinh Anand Society, Navagam G ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-11-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ206; AIR1997Guj60; (1996)3GLR180
S.D. Shah, J. 1. This First Appeal is preferred by original opponent No. 1 in petition filed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) at Jamnagar. The opponent Pravirisinh Prabhatsinh instituted such petition under Section 140 of the said Act inter alia claiming that on 16th February, 1990 around 10.15 in the morning because of rash and negligent driving by the present appellant of his Fiat Car bearing No. GRI 8061 on Jamnagar Rajkot Road, there was an accident as the car dashed agaist the scooter and he received multiple injuries including fracture of left leg and foot. He also stated that he has received 50% permanent disability and that he has also filed regular Motor Accident Claim Petition to recover compensation Rs. 3,66,000/-. He has further stated that during the pendency of such petition, he has filed application at Exhibit 18 for interim compensation under Section 140 of the said Act. Such application was fixed for he...
Mohamadali Suleman Varachhia and ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-11-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3125
H.R. Shelat, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 26th October 1988, passed by the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, at Surat, in Sessions Case No. 39 of 1988 on his file whereby the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 961 of 1988 came to be convicted of the offence under Section 20(B)(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrppic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter be referred to as 'NDPS Act'), Section 20(B)(1) of the NDPS Act, and Section 66(A) & (E) of the Bombay Prohibition Act; and sentenced to, 20 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs, in default 4 years rigorous imprisonment more in respect of the offence under Section 20(B)(2) of the NDPS Act; rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for 3 months more in respect of the offence under Section 20(B)(l) of NDPS Act; while no separate sentence was passed in respect of the offence under Section 66A(A)&(E)of the Bombay Prohibition Ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »