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.
Kalpataru Land Development Private Limited Vs. the Assistant Collector ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-14-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Guj205; (1996)2GLR600
ORDERJ.N. Bhatt, J. 1. In this batch of petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, common questions are involved. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. There are 22 petitions and facts are almost common and therefore, the facts in Special Civil Application No. 6511 of 1990 are mentioned. The petitioner is a company, incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. One Balvantrai P. Vyas was the owner of part and parcel of land situated at village Abhava bearing survey number 506 (original survey number 400) in Surat District admeasuring approximately 1138 acres of land.3. By mutation entry No. 861, dated 15-1-1985 pursuant to the order recorded in Revision. No. TEN A.S. 8/74 and also pursuant to the order passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.) Surat and also by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 8-4-1976, name of the Balvantrai P. Vyas came to be entered as owner of part of survey number 506 admeasuring about 1138 acres-8 gunthas.4...
Mansukhlal Bhanjibhai Dabhi Vs. Pithalal Popatlal Hithadia and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-14-1996
Reported in: II(1996)ACC186; 1997ACJ813; AIR1996Guj199
S.K. Keshote, J. 1. The appellant, an injured has filed this appeal against the judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamnagar dated 18-8-1988 passed in the Claim Petition No. 155 of 1982. The appellant who was injured in the vehicular accident while driving the Jeep of his employer lodged a claim of Rs. 3,40,000/-, against which the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,02,400/-. The appellant restricted the claim to Rs. 1,50,000/- only in the appeal.2. The appellant was driving Jeep No. GJP 2344 and Opponent No. 1 was driving Truck No. GTW-1038. The appellant has come out with a case that the accident had taken place on account of the negligent driving on the part of the truck driver. The Tribunal has found it to be a case of contributory negligence the truck driver was held to be negligent to the extent of 75% and the appellant--Jeep driver was held to be negligent to the extent of 25%. So far as disability which the appellant has sustained because of this accident is concerned, the Trib...
Pramod Hariprasad Tiwari Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-14-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1605; (1997)1GLR570
ORDERS.M. Soni, J.1. Petitioner, accused of Section 20(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychtropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act') and Section 66(1)(b) and Section 65(A) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, was arrested on 14-2-95. On 18-5-95, petitioner-accused filed an application for bail on the ground that period of 90 days as contemplated under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Code' for short) from the date of his arrest has expired and as the chargesheet is not filed, he is entitled to be released on bail on default of the prosecuting agency and he be ordered to be released on bail. Said application was heard and finally decided on 25-5-95 and came to be rejected on 30-5-95, by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge., Valsad. It is stated that in the meantime i.e. on 24-5-95, chargesheet came to be submitted. It will be relevant to state that the petitioner-accused has also submitted an application before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge with a request to prevent the inves...
Savitaben M. Patel and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-13-1996
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1567
S.K. Keshote, J.1. All these writ petitions proceed on common facts and as such they are being disposed of by this common order.2. In these petitions the petitioners have made the challenge to the order of termination of their services. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were given the appointment on temporary basis on different occasions on fixed term of 29 days. The learned Counsel for the petitioners made three-fold submissions in this Spl. Civil Application challenging the order of termination of the services of the petitioners. Firstly, he urged that the petitioners have worked though with some artificial break for more than three years and as such the break which has been given in their services should be declared to be illegal, invalid and inoperative. It has next been contended that even if it is appointment on temporary basis, then too, the termination of services of the petitioners is void and it is made in violation of Rule 33(1 )(b) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules...
Ranuj Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)2GLR433
M.S. Shah, J.1. This petition challenges the order dated 2nd January 1996 passed by the Additional Registrar (Appeals), Co-operative Societies, under Section 155 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') confirming the order dated 17th November 1995 passed by the District Registrar, Co-operative Society, Mehsana, (respondent No. 3 herein) appointing a Custodian for Ranuj Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited (petitioner No. 1 herein) under Section 74-D of the Act.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition, briefly stated, are as under. The petitioner-society has framed its bye-laws under the provisions of the 'Act. As per original bye-law No. 28, the Board of Directors was to consist of 11 Directors with a quorum of six Directors. One-third of the Directors were to retire every year. Accordingly, 11 Directors were elected on different dates, the details of which are given in the impugned order dated 17th November 1995 (page 33 of the...
BipIn Vadilal Mehta Vs. Ramesh B. Desai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: [1998]92CompCas910(Guj); (1996)3GLR147
S.D. Dave, J.1. The applicants, Shri Bipin Mehta and Shri Priyam Mehta, have presented Company Application No. 113 of 1995, and have taken out the judge's summons. 2. The prayers in the judge's summons can be reproduced thus : '(A) This Hon'ble court would be pleased to dismiss the present petition, being Company Petition No. 35 of 1988, on the ground that the petition is barred by limitation without going into the merits of the petition. (B) During the pendency of the present application, this Hon'ble court will be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Company Petition No. 35 of 1988. (C) An ex parte ad interim relief in terms of prayer (B) above may please be granted.' 3. Company Petition No. 35 of 1988 has been presented by Shri R. B. Desai. Respondent No. 1 happens to be the secretary of the company, namely, Sayaji Industries Ltd. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are Shri Bipin Mehta and Shri Priyam Mehta, who have taken out the company application. The case of the petitioners in th...
B.N. Srinivasa Murthy Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR572
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. This is a successive litigation by the petitioner before this Court. Earlier, he filed a Special Civil Application No. 3022 of 1983 which was decided on 23-12-1983. That writ petition related to a supersession in promotion made in the year, 1983. In the present Spl. Civil Application, the petitioner has questioned his supersession in promotion made in the year 1987-88. The petitioner claims the promotion to the post of Manager (E 4) from the post of Deputy Manager (E 3) on and with effect from 25th June, 1987 with all other consequential benefits under the guidelines which have been issued by the respondent No. 1. The cases for promotion are considered by the D.P.C. by making assessment under different heads and are allocated marks as under:Factor MarksPerformance appraisal (ACR) 50Qualificatio 10Experience 10Suitability 302. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that 30 marks which have been allocated under th...
Satish Jayantilal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-11-1996
Reported in: [1999]95CompCas303(Guj); 1996CriLJ3099; (1996)2GLR751
R.R. Jain, J.1. These applications arise from Criminal Cases Nos. 1361 of 1092 and 1362 of 1992 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate (Court No. 15), Ahmedabad. In each case the learned Magistrate was pleased to hold the applicant guilty for commission of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000 in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate dated October 14, 1994, the applicant also preferred Criminal Appeals Nos. 41 of 1994 and 42 of 1994. The same were decided by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge (Court No. 12), Ahmedabad, on May 1, 1995, confirming the lower court's order. Aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the courts below, the applicant/original accused has preferred the above revision applications. 2. Since in both cases the parties are same and are ...
Chandrikaben Kapilbhai Joshi Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-11-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR477
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Rule. Service of Rule is waived by the Counsel for the respondents.2. Heard learned Counsels for the parties.3. The brief facts which led to this petition are that the petitioner was elected as Councillor from Savarkundla in November 1994. The Savarkundla Municipality under Slum Clearance Scheme had undetaken construction of concrete roads within the Municipal limits for which it had invited tenders for supply of cement, concrete metal, stone etc. Tender for supply of portland cement submitted by one Dharmendra Narmadashankar Joshi was accepted along with supply of hand crushed 40 mm metal. The payment for the supplies made by the said Dharmendra Narmadashankar Joshi were also made by the Municipality. The said Dharmendra Narmadashankar Joshi is brother of petitioner's husband. On some complaint being lodged the Collector issued notice under Section 38(2) to the petitioner that she had to show cause against the proposed action for treating the petitioner to have incu...
Vishnubhai K. Thaker Vs. Upadhyay, District Registrar Sidhpur and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-11-1996
Reported in: (1996)2GLR288
M.S. Shah, J.1. The following operative order in the present petition was pronounced on 1st March 1996. For constraints of time, the reasons could not be dictated at that time.Rule Mr. K.M. Mehta, learned A.G.P., waives service of Rule. For the reasons to be recorded hereafter, the petition is allowed. The decision of respondent Mo. 1 taken on 1st March 1996 holding that the petitioner is not qualified to be a candidate at the election to be held on 12-3-1996 to Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Sidhpur, from the traders constituency is hereby set aside and it is declared that the petitioner is qualified to be a candidate from the traders constituency of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Sidhpur. Rule is made absolute accordingly with on order as to costs. Direct Service is permitted.The following are the reasons for allowing the petition as per above order dated 8-3-1996.2. The petition is filed by a member of the Sidhpur Taluka Sahkari Kharid Vechan Sangh Limited, that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »