Gujarat Court October 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.
Rajesh Chandulal Purohit Vs. Saurashtra University and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-03-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Guj148; (1997)1GLR317
M.S. Shah, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5th July 1996 of the learned single Judge dismissing Special Civil Application No. 8945 of 1995 which was filed by the appellant student challenging the order of penalty passed by the respondent Saurashlra University in respect of the misconduct committed at the T.Y.B. Com. examination. 2. On 8th April 1995, the TYBCom examination in the subject of statistics was held. The appellant was one of the students who appeared at the said examination from Porbandar Centre. University Observer Mrs. N.K. Trivedi sent by the respondent-University submitted report dated 8th April 1995 pointing out that certain students of the above examination centre had collected their answer books from the supervisor, but at the time of checking, the students themselves were not found to be present in the examination hall nor had they returned the answer books to the supervisor. The Observer had, therefore, instructed th...
Union of India Vs. Rupera Transport Co. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-01-1996
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2372
B.C. Patel, J.1. The present appeals are arising out of the proceedings initiated before the City Civil Court, (Court No. 13) at Ahmedabad. After the award in question was filed before the court, the court issued notice under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The present respondent raised an objection and submitted that the Union of India came to know about the filing of the award by the arbitrator on 9-1-1989, as per the affidavit filed by Mr. P. K. Meena working in DRM office, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. The application for setting aside the award should have been filed, as contended by the present opponent, within a period of 30 days, in view of the provisions of Art. 119(b) of the Limitation Act, and the period of 30 days expired on 3-2-1989. As within the prescribed period, application for setting aside the award was not filed, it was prayed that the application should be rejected. It is admitted position that the application has been lodged ...
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. P.G. Baria and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-01-1996
Reported in: (1998)1GLR208
M.S. Shah, J. 1. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Corporation') has filed this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution for challenging the order dated 11th September 1984 passed by the Conciliation Officer, Baroda under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Respondent No. 1, P. G. Baria, who was working as a driver with the Corporation was involved in a motor vehicle accident resulting into instantaneous death of a boy aged 14 years. After holding a regular departmental inquiry the Divisional Controller issued a second show-cause notice for dismissing the petitioner from service and immediately placed him under suspension without back wages on 121h September 1983. The Corporation also filed application under Section 33(1) of the Act before the Conciliator for permission to dismiss respondent No. 1 from service, as respondent No. 1 was a protected workman. Before the said applicat...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Rupera Transport Co. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-01-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Guj163; (1997)3GLR548
Patel, J.1. The present appeals are arising out of the proceedings initiated before the City Civil Court, (Court No. 13) at Ahmedabad. After the award in question was filed before the Court, the Court issued notice under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The present respondent raised an objection and submitted that the Union of India came to know about the filing of the award by the Arbitrator on 9-1 -1989, as per the affidavit filed by Mr. P. K. Meena working in DRM office, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. The application for setting aside the award should have been filed, as contended by the present opponent, within a period of 30 days, in view of the provisions of Article 119(b) of the Limitation Act, and the period of 30 days expired on 3-2-1989. As within the prescribed period, application for selling aside the award was not filed, it was prayed that the application should be rejected. It is admitted position that the application has been lodged o...
State of Gujarat Vs. Babubhai Madhubhai Makwana and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-01-1996
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2224
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The applicant-State has moved this application for condonation of delay of three days in preferring Criminal Appeal No. 422 of 1996 against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Nadiad on 28th February 1996 in Criminal Case No. 5943 of 1990. Thereby the learned trial Magistrate acquitted the opponents herein of the offences punishable under Sections 422 and 448 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.2. Opponent No. 1 was present. Opponent No. 2 is his wife. He prayed for assistance from an Advocate to be appointed by this Court. I tried to ascertain from learned Advocate Shri C.H. Vora present in the Court room whether or not it would be possible for him to assist this Court on behalf of the opponents in this case. On his showing willingness, learned Advocate Shri Vora has been appointed to assist this Court in this case for the opponents.3. The delay in preferring the appeal in question is only o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›