Gujarat Court April 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.
E.S.i. Scheme Vs. Natvarlal Amrutlal Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-30-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR835; (1997)ILLJ216Guj
1. This Special Civil Application is directed against an order dated May 16, 1994 passed by the Labour Court at Ahmedabad in Recovery Application No. 2082 of 1990 whereby the claim of the present respondent Natvarlal Amrutlal Shah was allowed with the direction to the E.S.I. Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 2,06,068/- to him as overtime dues for the period from July 21, 1973 to August 7, 1986 in respect of which the recovery application was filed on August 17, 1990. 2. On March 30, 1995 while issuing the Rule in this matter ad interim relief in terms of para 12(C)(1) was granted by the Court on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs. 2,06,068/- as directed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in this Court within six weeks. 3. Civil Application No. 2534 of 1995 has been moved by the present respondent on September 26, 1995 for vacating ad interim relief and for direction to withdraw the amount deposited by the E.S.I. Corporation in pursuance of the order dated March 3...
H.N. Dastur Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-30-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Guj169
ORDERJ.N. Bhatt, J.1. Since both these petitions raise common questions and identical points, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Whether growing of 'Nilgiri' and 'Subabul' trees could be said to be falling within the ambit of agricultural crop and operations and whether such operations in the land would amount to public purpose in view of the Government notification No. 2/31/77 (UCU(i) dated 19-12-1977 issued by the Government of India and whether exercise of powers in rejecting an application for exemption under Section 20(1) by the respondent authority is proper and valid, are the questions which have come to the surface for examination, interpretation and adjudication in these two petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The two petitions are hereinafter referred to as the first petition and the second petition, for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. Petitioners are medical practitioners andagriculturists. The petitione...
Ashish Bhupendrabhai Gandhi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-30-1996
Reported in: I(1998)DMC191; I(1999)DMC69; (1997)3GLR2153; (1997)3GLR329
S.D. Dave, J.1. The appellant came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 31 of 1993 vide the judgment of conviction and sentence dated November 9,1993. He has been sentenced to the R. I. for 7 years and to a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to the further R.I. of 4 months and to the R.I. for six months and to a fine of Rs. 500 in default to a further R.I. for one month and to the R.I. for one year and to a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to the R.I. for one month respectively. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The said judgment of conviction and sentence has been brought in challenge by the appellant-accused in the present criminal appeal before me.2. Deceased-Mamta happened to be the daughter of Navinchandra Parikh, P.W. 2, Exh. 18. The betrothal of Mamta with the appellant-accused, Ashish Gandhi came to made on Decemb...
Rupsinh Prabhatsinh Chauhan and anr. Vs. the State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-26-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Guj119; (1997)1GLR516
J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. Leave to amend the prayer and the title and to convert this petition also into one under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 11-12-93 passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No. 5 of 1993 whereby the revision filed by the petitioners came to be rejected confirming the order of the Collector, Godhra in Revision Application No. 23/92 dated 31-3-93 and also confirming the order of the Assistant Collector recorded on 7-11-92 in Case No. 62 of 1991, by filing this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.3. The learned Counsel Mr. Patel appearing for the petitioners has raised the following two contentions:(1) That the proceedings could not have been initiated after a lapse of period of about 12 years from the date of transaction; (2) That the authorities below should not have merely relied on the entry in the revenue record about ...
Associated Construction and Engineering Company and anr. Vs. Dhanlaxmi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Guj39; (1997)1GLR256
1. The plaintiff firm filed Civil Suit No. 740 of 1975 against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 42,859.64 ps. with costs and interest on following brief facts alleged in the plaint,2. The plaintiff No. 1 is a partnership firm in which plaintiff No. 2 is one of the partners. The defendant No. 1 is the defendant No. 2's wife. The defendants had a plot of land described in the plaint. They wanted to construct building and, therefore, after some amount of communication with the plaintiffs they entered into contract with plaintiffs regarding construction of Bungalow in the said plot of land. All printed quotation/sheet with estimates and quantity as well as rates of different items of construction had been attached with the contract. On February 4, 1975 the plaintiffs sent by Registered Post the bill of cost of construction to the first defendant. The second copy of the bill was sent on February 9, 1975. As per the said bill the cost of construction came to Rs. 63,435.29 ps. However, the ...
Dudhiben Merakhbhai Vs. Nathabhai Hazabhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: I(1998)DMC245; (1997)3GLR826
D.G. Karia, J.1. This revision application arises out of the proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 relating to maintenance pendente lite and expenses of Court proceedings, in the following facts and circumstances.2. The respondent No. 1, Nathabhai Hazabhai, is the original applicant who has filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 17 of 1994 against the petitioner-wife and the respondent No. 2 for divorce from the petitioner-wife under Section 13 of the said Act, on the ground that the petitioner-wife has been living in adultery with respondent No. 2. The said divorce proceedings are pending in the Court of the learned Assistant Judge, Junagadh. The petitioner has joined respondent No. 2 as the paramour of the petitioner-wife.3. By the application Exh. 10, the petitioner-wife claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month and Rs. 2,000/- as expenses to contest the divorce proceedings. The petitioner-wife, inter alia contended in the said petition that she has ...
Dineshbhai Somabhai Patel Vs. I.G. Prisons
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1356; (1996)2GLR818
ORDERS.D. Dave, J.1. Rule. Learned Government Counsel Mr. Nigam Shukla waives the service of Rule for the respondents.2. The present petition, upon a conjoint reading of the provisions contained under Section 32A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act') and the Supreme Court pronouncement in the case of Maru Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2147, requires a complete recognition.3. The undisputed facts are that, the petitioner Dineshbhai Patel, the prisoner, lodged at Central Jail, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad, came to be convicted for the offences punishable under NDPS Act, 1985 vide orders of conviction dated Sept. 23, 1988. According to him, he is entitled to all the remissions which he has earned and that, if that is taken into consideration, the sentence awarded to him has become over and he should be out of the prison. This view being repeatedly canvassed by the petitioner, is not being countenanced by the respondents, placing a...
State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Karsanbhai Madhabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1224
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. This appeal by the State of Gujarat is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 29-5-1995, rendered in Summary Case No. 11 of 1987, by the learned Special Judge, Rajkot, wherein on the respondent Patel Karsanbhai Madhabhai, Proprietor of K.M. Oil Industries, Gondal, coming to be tried for the alleged contravention of Clause 26(vi) of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981, which is an offence punishable under Sees. 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, was at the end of the trial ordered to be acquitted.2. When this matter came up for admission on 27-3-1996, at the very outset taking serious note of quite an unjustifiable protracted trial this Court was constrained to pass the following order:It appears that the alleged offence took place on 6-2-1984 and surprisingly the complaint came to be filed on 16-4-1987 !! and thereafter also the matter ultimately came to be decided by the Special Court on 2...
Varsanbhai Rajubhai Rathwa and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR255
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioners in both these petitions have challenged the final eligibility list of the employees who have passed the Lower Revenue Qualifying Examination (LRQE) and Higher Revenue Qualifying Examination (HRQE), published under the Government Circular dated 9th March, 1995 as per Annexure 'A' in both these petitions. Special Civil Application No. 7158 of 1995 was filed on 21st August, 1995 and the six petitioners of that petition have also challenged their reversion order dated 6-9-1995. The petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 7933 of 1995 have also challenged their reversions under the order dated 6-9-1995. These reversions are from the post of Mamlatdars to which they were appointed on ad hoc basis to the Deputy Mamlatdar's post.2. The petitioners belong to the Subordinate Revenue Service. Initially, they belonged to the Lower Division of the Subordinate Revenue Service and by passing the Lower Revenue Qualifying Examination, they became qualified to...
Union Bank of India, Bombay Vs. Suresh Bhailal Mehta and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Guj48; (1997)1GLR260
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 96, C.P.C. filed by the original plaintiff, challenging the judgment and decree of the dismissal of its suit viz. Civil Suit No. 2173/ 76, passed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. The plaintiff had filed the suit against the defendants for a sum of Rs. 13586.75 together with Costs and interest.2. The plaintiff averred that the first defendant first respondent was a person who had suffered financial hardship on account of communal riots which broke out in the city of Ahmedabad in September 6, 1969, and therefore requested the plaintiff bank to extend to him credit facilities by way of a clean loan to continue his business activities. Accordingly the plaintiff bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 15,000/- and paid that sum to him on 5th December 1969. The first defendant at that time executed a demand promissory note for the said amount, an agreement of hypothecation and other documents in favour of the plaintiff bank, and the second defendant ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »