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.
Gujarat Housing Board Vs. Navalkishor Revashanker Pandya
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR748
M.R. Calla, J.1. The respondent was working as Valveman with the Gujarat Housing Board. He preferred an application under Section 33-C(2) claiming wages for the weekly off and that application was allowed by an order dated 8-11-1982 for the period upto 31-5-1980. The respondent claimed that he had worked on the weekly holidays even thereafter and continued to work as such even on weekly holidays till he retired on 31-1-1987 and he preferred yet another application under Section 33-C(2) on 27-5-1987 claiming wages for weekly off for the period after 31-5-1980 till the date of his retirement, i.e., 31-1-1987. This application under Section 33-C(2) for the period till 31-1-1987 has been allowed by the Labour Court, Rajkot vide his order dated 14-8-1995 passed in Recovery Application No. 235 of 1987.2. This order dated 14-8-1985 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot has been challenged by the Gujarat Housing Board through this Special Civil Application. The petitioner came with the case that ...
indichem Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-1996
Reported in: 1996(88)ELT35(Guj)
B.C. Patel, J.1. In all these petitions the petitioners have challenged the issuance of a circular/order. Annexure 'D' to the petition, issued under Section 37B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. 2. Learned Advocates have stated that as facts and questions raised are common in all the cases, all the matters can be disposed of together, and accordingly, we have taken the facts from SCA No. 9034/95, and the aforesaid matters are disposed of by a common judgment. 3. Respondent No. 2 Central Board of Excise and Customs issued a circular, Annexure 'D' to the petition, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 37B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the purpose of ensuring uniformity in classification and practice of assessment of the said goods, the Board directed that the addition of chemicals and other ingredients like inert carriers or solvents and also surface active dispersing and ...
Haji Suleman Khafi Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ558
ORDERS.M. Soni, J.1. Petitioner - detenu has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality, validity and property of the order of detention dated 17-2-87 served on the detenu on 5-4-95 passed by the specially empowered officer i.e. Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Home Department, in exercise of power under Sub-section (i) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA), 'with a view to preventing the petitioner from abetting the smuggling of goods.2. Along with the order of detention, the petitioner was also served with the grounds of detention and relevant documents. The grounds on which the order of detention came to be passed, in short, areas under:- The Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence received information on 24-12-86 that between the period of 24-12-86 and 25-12-86, smuggled goods are likely to land at sea-coast of Kodinar by o...
Jagdishbhai Nagarbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)2GLR499
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The short question which has come to the surface in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is as to whether a revision under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('U.L.C. Act', for short) is maintainable after the appeal is heard against the same order.2. The petitioner has questioned the show cause notice issued pursuant to purported exercise of powers of suo motu revision under Section 34. The impugned show cause notice alongwith stay order came to be issued on 1-9-1995 for reviewing order dated 2-4-1994 which came to be passed by the Competent Authority and Additional Collector, Surat ('the competent authority' for short) declaring 3,790 sq. mts. of land as excess vacant land which had been confirmed in U.L.C. Appeal No. 69 of 1994 by the Urban Ceiling Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) by its order dated 1-9-1995.3. Section 34 reads as under:34. The State Government may, on its own motion, call for and examine the records of...
State of Gujarat Vs. Amrish Jagmohan Parikh and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Guj71
ORDERJ.N. Bhatt, J. 1. Whether the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad, has committed serious error of law in refusing to condone the delay of three years and seven days in filing revision application under Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act) arid if yes, whether the present petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches in filing the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, is the central theme of the present petition.2. The Mamlatdar and ALT, Gandhinagar in tenancy case No. 2580/82 decided on 30-4-1983 held that there was no violation of the provisions of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act and the respondent No. 1. A.J. Parikh is an agriculturist. The matter was taken in suo motu revision before the Collector in Revision No. 170/83 under Section 76-A of the Tenancy Act. The said revision came to be dismissed confirming the order of the Mamlatdar on 29-12-1983. The order was furtherquestioned by filing a revision applicati...
Shantilal Joitaram Patel Vs. Secretary, Co-op. Department and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-1996
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2491
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties.The petitioner was appointed as Secretary, after selection, on probation. This appointment of the petitioner was subject to the approval of the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance, Gandhinagar. The Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, vide his office order dated 21-5-1986 approved the appointment of the petitioner. These facts are not in dispute. The services of the petitioner were terminated vide resolution No. 7 dated 8th December, 1988. From the reading of the resolution aforesaid it comes out that his services were terminated taking into consideration the misconduct of the petitioner and treating him to be on temporary service.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was confirmed Secretary and not temporary, and as such his services could not have been terminated in the manner and the fashion in which it has been done in the pre...
Shantaben Ishvarbhai Patel and ors. Vs. Additional Chief Secretary, Re ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR49
A.N. Divecha, J.1. Practically identical orders passed by the Collector of Vadodara (respondent No. 2 herein in each petition) as affirmed in revision by the common order passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) at Ahmcdabad (respondent No. 1 herein) on behalf of the State Government (respondent No. 3 herein in each petition) on 25th November 1987 is under challenge in these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, respondent No. 2 fixed premium at the rate of 70% of the market value with respect to the subject-matter of these petitions for conversion thereof from the tenure to old tenure. The petitioners have also incidentally challenged the Government resolution passed on 19th February 1979 and 4th December 1986 prescribing the rate of premium for the purpose of conversion of lands from new tenure to old tenure qua the scheme under Section 21(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Ceiling Act ...
Manjulaben Bhailalbhai Patel and ors. Vs. Vadodara Urban Development A ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-1996
Reported in: (1996)2GLR588
S.K. Keshote, J.1. In all these three petitions the facts are identical and the grounds of challenge are also similar. The respondents are common in all the three petitions. With the consent of the parties, these matters are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Arguments have been advanced by the Counsel for the parties with reference to Special Civil Application No. 3638 of 1995. The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 3638 of 1995 are the owners and occupiers of land bearing survey Nos. 144-1 and 144-2 situated in the sim of Manjalpur of District and Sub-District Vadodara. The lands of the petitioners are covered by the geographical limits and jurisdiction of Vadodara Urban Development Authority ('VUDA').3. The Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 ('T.P. Act' for short) is enacted in exercise of the legislative powers vested in the Gujarat State Legislature with the object of consolidating and amending the law relating to the making and e...
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kanawala J.N.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR85; (1998)IIILLJ15Guj
M.R. Calla, J.1. Heard learned Counsel. Respondent-workman Shri J. N. Kanawala was working with Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation ('G.S.R.T.C.' for short) as driver. By an order dated July 11, 1982 he was dismissed from service. He raised industrial dispute and thereupon reference being made the Labour Court, Surat passed an award in his favour on May 30, 1992 in Reference L.C.S. No. 597 of 1993 granting relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages: Against this award dated May 30, 1992 G.S.R.T.C. preferred Special Civil Application before this Court. That Special Civil Application No. 597 of 1993 was rejected on January 29, 1993 by Division Bench as at that time such matters were heard by the Division Bench. Later on G.S.R.T.C. preferred this Misc. Civil Application in the nature of Review Application and the order dated January 29, 1993 passed in Special Civil Application was sought to be reviewed. The petitioner-Corporation came out with the case that...
Ratilal Ichcharam Sorathia and ors. Vs. Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR439
J. N. Bhatt, J.1. The petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of the judgment and order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in Appeal No. Surat 94 of 1992 on 22-9-1993 confirming the order of the Competent Authority dated 30-7-1992 by filing this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioners are coparcener of Hindu undivided family and are holding the ancestral property bearing Revenue survey No. 114 of village Bhatar, sub-district Chorasi, Dist. Surat area admeasuring 9,003.60 sq. mtrs. As the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 ('U.L.C. Act') came into force, the petitioners had filed Form No. 1 under Section 6 of the U.L.C. Act. Respondent No. 2 Competent Authority passed order and declared 253.60 sq. mtrs. of land as excess vacant land. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed appeal before the Urban Land Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The said appeal came to be dismissed on 22-9-1993. The petitioners, thereaft...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »