Gujarat Court March 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.
Atul Romeshchandra Desai Vs. Bank of Baroda and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR736
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner who was working with the respondent-Bank as Deputy General Manager, seeks a direction on the respondents that they should accept his request for voluntary retirement with consequential benefits. He challenges the order dated 14-10-1994 of the respondent-Bank rejecting his application for voluntary retirement and also challenges the show-cause notice dated 16/19th November, 1994 by which he was called upon to show cause as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him for the reasons mentioned in that notice.2. The petitioner, on 11th August, 1994 sent a communication to the respondent-Bank, a copy of which is at Annexure 'B' to the petition, stating that as he turned 55 years of age on 2nd August, 1994, his request for voluntary retirement from the Bank's service should be considered. Again on 19th August, 1994, he wrote to the Bank to consider his request for voluntary retirement from service and in that connection to waive o...
Sabarkantha District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. and anr. Vs. Sta ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-21-1996
Reported in: (1996)2GLR792
N.N. Mathur, J.1. A short question involved in this Special Civil Application is whether term of the office-bearers of the specified co-operative society is coterminous with the term of the Managing Committee.2. The petitioner Sabarkantha District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. is a co-operative society duly registered under the provisions of Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'). It is a registered co-operative society within the meaning of Section 74C of the Act of 1961. Chapter VII of the Act of 1961 provides for management of the society. Section 73 of the Act of 1961 provides that subject to the provisions in the Act and the Rules, final authority of every society shall vest in the general body of members in general meeting.3. Section 74 of the Act of 1961 provides that the management of every society shall vest in a committee constituted in accordance with the Act, Rules and the Bye-laws, which shall exercise such powers a...
Shakti Chemicals Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-1996
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2574
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm. The land situated in village Baska in Taluka Halol, Dist. Panchmahals was the subject-matter of non-agricultural permission granted on 3-10-1983 by the Taluka Development Officer, Halol to the erstwhile owner and occupant of disputed land. The Competent Authority and the Taluka Development Authority granted permission to convert the land into non-agricultural purpose and mutation entry No. 1411 came to be made in revenue record pursuant to the order of the T.D.O. It was also certified that the disputed land came to be sold by the erstwhile owner, to whom the permission was granted, to a commercial concern, who in turn sold to the petitioner by regular sale deed dated 21-9-1983 and mutation entry was also accordingly made and it was certified on 15-1-1983.2. Taluka Panchayat, Halol, granted the application of the petitioner under Section 67 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code to convert the purpose. The petitioner obtained financial adv...
Manibhai Jethabhai Vaghela Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR118
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the order passed by the Collector, Sabarkantha, on 6-10-1995 whereby he himself quashed his earlier order dated 6-9-1990.2. The petitioner has been the owner and occupier of the agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 94 and 95 of village Balvantpura, Taluka Himatnagar, Dist. Sabarkantha which are hereinafter referred to as 'the disputed properties'. The petitioner purchased the disputed properties from one Mansinh Amarsinh Chauhan. The disputed lands were of restricted tenure lands which could not have been transferred except as provided under Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act) and Rule 25C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1956 (Rules). The erstwhile owner Mansinh Amarsinh Chauhan wanted to sell the lands in dispute bona fide for non-agricultural purpose as he had incurred heavy ...
Motisen Somaji and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-1996
Reported in: (1996)2GLR286
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of the show cause notice issued by respondent No. 2. Talati-cum-Mantri of village Ghatlodia, Taluka City, Ahmedabad dated 27th January 1994 by filing this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioners are the owners and occupants of land bearing survey No. 213, the said survey number came to be included in the Town Planning Scheme before 1985. The Scheme came into operation in 1976. The land in question was under final plot No. 16 and the land ultimately came to be allotted to the final plot is admeasuring 8.348 sq. mtrs.3. The petitioners had applied for permission for development under Section 29 of Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act. 1976 (the Act). On scrutiny of the application for permission to develop submitted by the petitioners, the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA). Granted permission to develop the land in question. The permission was thus issu...
Rameshbhai Dalsangbhai and ors. Etc. Vs. the Director, Agriculture Mar ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Guj1; (1996)2GLR165
ORDERM.S. Shah, J. 1. All these petitions raise certain common questions of-law and challenge deletion of the petitioners' names from the final lists of voters in different constitutencies for elections to Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Visnagar (hereafter referred to as 'the APMC'). At the joint request of the learned counsels for all the parties, the petitions are therefore heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Before examining the grievances of the petitioners and the defences raised by the respondents, it is necessary to have a look at certain provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act ('the Act' for brevity) and the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965, ('the Rules' for brevity). Section 2 of the Act contains definitions some of which read as under:'agricultural produce' means all produce, whether processed or not, of agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry, specified in the Schedule. (v) 'co-operative marke...
State of Gujarat Vs. Gurukrupa Construction Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR373
N.J. Pandya, J.1. This appeal arises out of a judgment of the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in Special Civil Suit No. 335 of 1995 given on 2-12-1994. The suit was for recovering damages to the tune of Rs. 3,44,38,476/-. The suit is based on law of torts, action in negligence. The learned trial Judge, by the said judgment, allowed the suit partly and granted decree in favour of plaintiff-respondent to the tune of Rs. 76,02,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till realization and of course with costs.2. The cross-objections are filed by the original plaintiff-respondent for the sum of Rs. 64 Lakhs. The net result, therefore, is that though the suit was for above referred amount, after getting the said decree of Rs. 76,02,000/-, the plaintiff has restricted his claim in cross-objections to Rs. 64 lakhs. In other words, now he is restricting his claim to Rs. 1,40,02,000/-3. The plaintiff-respondent was working as Classs-A Contra...
State of Gujarat Vs. Rajendrasinh Ramjansinh and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR470
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. We have been simply stunned to find quite queer and totally indiscreet attitude of the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, in acquitting four accused persons on the most questionable ground, viz., that the prosecution failed to examine the witnesses!! It is simply unfortunate and disgusting too, that on the one hand the learned trial Judge did not care to realise his own duty to do justice, as if he had none, and on the other hand, placing the entire blame on the prosecution side, as if that was just and sufficient ground to white-wash the accusation of serious offence levelled against the accused, more particularly in a serious case wherein sword has been used, and the accused has been arraigned for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the 1. P. Code!! It is indeed a settled legal position to be ignorant about by any experienced Judge that once the charge is framed, the ball is unquestionably in the court of the trial Court and the learned trial...
Babubhai M. Patel and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)2GLR543
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Whether an order under the provision of Section 65 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('the Tenancy Act') for assumption of management of land which allegedly remained uncultivated, is legal and valid and secondly what is the impact and ramification of the provisions of Section 42 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('U.L.C. Act'), are the two main questions requiring examination and adjudication in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioners are the agriculturists 'holding land at Chandkheda, Taluka Gandhinagar, admeasuring 1 acre-37 gunthas. The Deputy Collector passed an order for assuming management of the disputed land which allegedly remained uncultivated for three years which is under challenge in this petition. Section 65 of the Tenancy Act reads as under:65. (1) If it appears to the State Government that for any two consecutive years, any land has remained uncultivated or the ful...
Jitendra Chhabildas Dave and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)2GLR739
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The order passed by the Deputy Collector of Viramgam Prant at Ahmedabad (the First Authority for convenience) on 4th September 1993 in Con. Case No. 38 of 1993 as affirmed in revision by the order passed by and on behalf of the State of Gujarat (the Revisional Authority for convenience) on 11th January 1995 is under challenge in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. By his impugned order, the First Authority declared two transactions of sale of two pieces of land admeasuring 606 square yards and 1,000 square yards from survey No. 241/3 in all admeasuring 3,743 square metres situated at Bodakdev within the urban agglomeration of Ahmedabad (the disputed land for convenience) to be contrary to Section 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (the Fragmentation Act for brief) and set aside the sale transactions and imposed penalty of Rs. 250/- on the original owners and directed summary evicti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »