Gujarat Court December 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.
Jyotindra J. Shah Vs. Navnitlal D. Parikh and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-17-1996
Reported in: (1998)2GLR1487
S.K. Keshote, J.1. As all these petitions proceed on same facts and grounds, and as such, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. To appreciate the controversy which has been raised by the petitioners in these Special Civil Applications, the facts are being taken from Special Civil Application No. 4588 of 1988.3. The petitioner No. 2 is a Managing Trustee of Shri C.P. Bhagat Trust. This trust runs a primary school in the name of Democratic Primary School, and the petitioner No. 1 is its Principal. The respondent Nos. 3 to 7, the teachers of the said school filed an Application No. 130 of 1987 before the Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The cognizance of this application was taken by the Tribunal on 19-10-1987 by passing an ex parte interim orders restraining the petitioners from terminating the services of respondent Nos. 3 to 7 as also not to interfere in their performing duties and to make payment regularly of approved salary by cheques. The passing of...
Unilec Engineering Co. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-17-1996
Reported in: (1998)1GLR519
K.R. Vyas, J.1. The appellant-plaintiffs have filed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 28-6-1995 passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Court No. 22, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 1969 of 1990, whereby the suit filed by the appellants was dismissed.2. The first appellant is a proprietary concern and the second appellant is its sole proprietor. In the suit filed by the appellants, number of reliefs were prayed. However, to summarise the same in nutshell, the appellants filed the said suit for a declaration that the respondent-defendants are not entitled to disconnect the telephone connections held by the appellant-plaintiffs and for a direction to restore and/or reconnect the telephones of the appellants.3. It is the case of the appellants that they were subscribers of two telephone connections one at the factory being No. 811585 and another at the residence being No. 39514. Telephone No. 811585 was disconnected with effect from 25-11-1985 for non-payment of the two ...
Bhavendra H. Parmar and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-16-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Guj125
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The relevant prayers made by the petitioners in this Special Civil Application read as under:...To issue a writ of mandamus, certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order: (a) quashing and setting aside the letter of the State Government dated 14-2-69 at annexure T and directing the respondent-State and authorities to extend to the petitioners the pay scales of qualified Vaidyas pursuant to Sarela and Desai Pay Commissions recommendations and to pay to them the difference in salary with retrospective effect from the due dates: (b) directing the respondent-authorities to extend to the petitioners the benefits of the above said pay commissions recommendations and to fix the salaries of the petitioners on the basis of the pay scales of qualified Vaidyas under the above said recommendations and to fix their future salaries on that basis and to pay to them arrears in difference of salary on that basis; (c) direct...
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Hanif Mohmed Bismillakhan ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-13-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ885; (1997)1GLR631
H.R. Shelat, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and awards dated 19.3.1982 passed by the then learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) at Surendranagar in M.A.C. Case Nos. 185 of 1980 and 252 of 1981 awarding some amount of compensation, the original opponent No. 2 has filed both the appeals.2. As both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and order passed by the Tribunal and common question of law and facts are raised before us, in order to avoid undue consumption of time and conflicting judgments, we preferred to hear both the appeals together and dispose of the same by a common judgment and accordingly by this common judgment, both the appeals shall stand disposed of.3. The facts, leading the appellant to prefer the appeals may in brief be stated. Hanif Mohmed Bismillakhan was serving as body-builder in Cama Motors Pvt. Ltd. at Ahmedabad. He was also knowing driving. Sukhrambhai, the proprietor of Kathiawad Motors, Rajkot had placed the order for Hi...
R.V. Rayjada and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-13-1996
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1530
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties.2. The petitioners, in all 25 in number, filed this Special Civil Application and claim has been made that the action of the respondents not to consider the petitioners for promotion to the cadre carrying a pay scale of Rs. 425-700, be declared to be illegal, null and void.3. The petitioners were originally appointed in the cadre of Surveyor/Clerk between the period 15th January 1951 to 1st August 1955, in the then State of Saurashtra. The petitioners have passed the sub-service Departmental Examination and they were promoted to the post of Maintenance Surveyors. The petitioners have given out in the writ petition that the present pay scales of the post of Surveyor/ Clerk and Maintenance Surveyor are Rs. 290-489 and Rs. 380-560 respectively. All the service conditions of the petitioners were to be governed by the Rules and Regulations framed by the State of Saurashtra from time to time. The petitioners have come up with the case...
Vania Silk Mills Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Silk Mills Workers' Union and Anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-1996
Reported in: [1998]92CompCas671(Guj); [1998(79)FLR631]; (1997)3GLR2167
R. Balia, J. 1. Since the filing of the petition, winding up proceedings of the petitioner-company have taken place and official liquidator has been appointed. At the request of learned Counsel Mr. M. R. Bhatt in the presence of Official Liquidator, the oral request of substituting the name of Official Liquidator as representing the petitioner-company is allowed. Necessary amendment shall be carried out by the learned Counsel by the end of the day. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 3-6-1985 made by the Civil Court, Gandevi, as authority under Payment of Wages Act directing the petitioner-company that :- 'In the interest of natural justice I appoint Shri K. B. Naik, Clerk of the Court of this Court and Shri V. L. Panwala, Advocate as Commissioners. If the defendant Mill does not furnish the necessary security, then the Commissioners to take the possession of the Mill, attach the machinery and other material - movable or immovable and to sell the same by proclamation and the a...
Satyanarayan Mandir and Rokadia Hanuman Sarvajanik Trust Patan and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)3GLR1825
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties. Challenge is made by the petitioner in this Special Civil Application to the order of the District Judge, Mehsana dated 30th January, 1982 under which execution application filed by the petitioner was dismissed.2. The petitioner herein is a trust, which has its property at Patan (inclusive of temple). Previously one Sadhu Saligram was the sole trustee and Mahant of the trust. He submitted an application in the year 1961 for registration of the trust and ultimately the trust was registered as a public trust under the order of the Chanty Commissioner dated 7-6-1961. Shri Saligram expired on 1-8-1972. After his death the dispute over the trust property started between Vrajlal and his relative and friends on one side and certain persons of the locality who were taking interest in the trust property on the other side. Complaints were filed against each other. Vrajlal, i.e., the respondent No. 1 herein filed a Civil Suit in the Court...
Mariamben Wd/O. Mohammed Ahmed Ameji and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1056
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The order passed by the Deputy Collector of Choryasi Prant at Surat (Respondent No. 2 herein) on 16th August 1994 but communicated on 5th September 1994 is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thereby respondent No. 2 ordered resumption of administration for 10 years of one parcel of land bearing Survey No. 9001 renumbered as Block No. 95 situated at Sachin, Taluka Choryasi (the disputed land for convenience) for breach of Section 65 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act for brief).2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The disputed land belongs to petitioner No. 1. She has entered into an agreement for sale with petitioner No. 2 some time on 1st May 1987. Thereafter the State Government issued one notification under Section 88(1 )(b) of the Act exempting inter alia Survey No. 90 of Sachin, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat from operation of the Act. Its copy is at Annexu...
State of Gujarat Vs. Pirubhai Jivabhai Mistry
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-11-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR560
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. 'Whether and when the panch-witness having supported the prosecution case in his examinationin-chief and ultimately during the cross-examination started giving evidence prejudicial, rather destructive to the prosecution, then under the circumstances, learned trial Judge was justified in not permitting the learned PP to re-examine him and/or to put him leading question/s in the nature of cross-examination merely because moment and at the time the witness started deviating bidding good-bye to the prosecution case, adding or substracting from the original statement, the learned PP failed to object and make request to re-examine or cross-examine as the case may be ?? This in short, precisely is the question which this Court is called upon to answer, arising in the context and background of the facts-situation of the case narrated hereunder.2. To state few relevant facts - Pirubhai Jivabhai Mistry with others came to be tried for the alleged offences punishable under Secti...
Patel Mafatlal Jethalal Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-10-1996
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2212
S.K. Keshote, J.1. In both these Special Civil Applications not only the parties are common, but the facts and grounds raised therein are also common, and as such, the same are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts are being laken from Special Civil Application No. 241 1 of 1986 as agreed by both the Counsels lor the parties.3. The petitioner is doing the business of mustard seeds for which the petitioner is holding the licence No. H/193/81. On 6-7-1984, the respondent No. 3 seized the petitioner's goods, namely. 74.32 quintals of mustard seeds. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice for the proceedings under Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act. 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1955) for the confiscation of seized mustard seeds. The petitioner submitted objections to the show-cause notice. The respondent No. 2 under its order dated 9-9-1984 ordered for confiscation of the seized mustard seeds of 74.32 quintals. The petitioner being aggrieved...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »