Gujarat Court July 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.
Ramjanibhai Pirbhai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-24-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR412
J.N Bhatt, J.1. Whether the impugned order of the respondent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (U.L.C. Act) declaring 1,751 sq. mtrs. of land as surplus land is tainted with or suffering from the vice of non-observance of the principles of natural justice is the main issue which has come to the surface in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner had filled in Form No. 1 under Section 6(1) of the U.L.C. Act in respect of the holdings before the Competent Officer and Deputy Collector, Urban Land Ceiling, Ahmedabad who upon inquiry held by order dated 25-3-1988 that 1,751 sq. mtrs. of land was surplus land. Being dissatisfied by the said judgment and order of the Competent Authority, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Secretary and Urban Land Tribunal, State of Gujarat, under Section 33 of the U.L.C. Act which also came to be dismissed on 31st March, 1990. Hence this petition.3. The learned Counsel for the pe...
Gujarat Rajya Talati-cum-mantri Union Vs. District Development Officer ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR55
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties. The petitioner, Gujarat Rajya Talati-cum-Mantri Mahamandal filed this petition before this Court wherein the prayer has been made that the direction may be given to the respondents that the Talati-cum-Secretaries who are sent for basic training of 3-1/2 months during their service are entitled to their regular salary which they are drawing at the time of training. The Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Talati-cum-Secretaries who are sent for the aforesaid training are paid stipend of Rs. 150/- p.m. and Miscellaneous expenses of Rs. 20/- p.m. during the period of training and not the salary. This writ petition has been filed by the Union and the person who has been sent for training has not made any grievance before this Court. In the service jurisprudence, it is difficult to appreciate the writ petition by the Union in all the matters.2. The Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Jain v. Union of India reported in : 1993(...
Jadeja Ganpatsinh Kanubha Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR77
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties. The petitioner has taken loan from the Society, respondent No. 4 herein for purchase of tractor. He made default in payment of instalments of loan and as such the respondent No. 4 filed Lavad suit No. 12 of 1982 for recovery of amount of Rs. 92,000/- and odd. The Lavad suit has been withdrawn by the Society without prejudice to their right to proceed to recover the amount in question under the provisions of Section 106 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). The Society has then proceeded under Section 106 of the said Act against the petitioner and the Assistant District Registrar of the Co-operative Societies (Cooperation) issued a certificate under Section 106 of the said Act for recovery of the amount of loan advanced to the petitioner as land revenue. This certificate is challenged by the petitioner by filing this Special Civil Application.2. Shri P.M. Thakker, learned Co...
Shah and Patel Construction Co. Vs. Baroda Municipal Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-22-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR390
N.N. Mathur, J.1. By way of this Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Company seeks direction to quash and set aside Resolution Nos. 4 and 5 dated 22-2-1996 passed by the Standing Committee of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation and Resolution No. 177 dated 6-3-1996 of the General Board.2. The facts as culled out from the pleadings of the parties are that as per the advertisement published in various newspapers dated 5-6-1994, a part of the final plot No. 76 of T.P. Scheme No. I, admeasuring 10,599 sq. metres reserved for the purpose of neighbourhood centre (local shops, library, public hall, open space, electric Sub-station) was put to auction on 30-6-1994. The petitioner, a construction company offered the highest bid of Rs. 1,900/- per sq. metre. It appears from the auction proceedings that the petitioner submitted their altered/additional conditions mentioned as under:1. Final plot No. 76 of T.P. Scheme No. I is reserved for 'neigh...
Kamuben Wd/O. Ramanlal Keshavlal Vs. Parmar Chamanbhai Narsinhbhai and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR449
S.M. Soni, J.1. Petitioner-victim in the case-has filed this application for cancellation of bail granted in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 by this Court (Coram: D.G. Karia J.) by his order dated 9-12-1994 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 4860 of 1994. This application is filed on the ground that the accused are threatening the victim repeatedly. However, for the same, complaints are registered, one on 14-12-1994 and another on 11-4-1995. It is further alleged that the respondents are strong-headed persons and indulge in liquor and other anti-social activities. It is, therefore, prayed for cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.2. At the outset, learned Advocate for the petitioner states that he does not press this application qua respondent No. 4, namely, Bhaiya Ramkaran Parshuram, as he could not be served of this application and his whereabouts are not known. He also requests that in case of exigency in future, he reserves his right to file such an application.3. Ordinari...
Mahuva Kelavani Sahayak Samaj and ors. Vs. Rasiklal K. Joshi and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR508
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the common judgment and order dated March 28, 1994 passed by the Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal in application Nos. 72, 73, 74, 75 and 107 of 1992 by which the Tribunal declared that the termination of 'the services of these respondents-teachers from 30-11-1989 by the petitioner-school management was illegal and that they were entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in this group of petitions contended that the provisions of Section 40B(1) of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947 were attracted in the instant case because the termination of service of the respondents-teachers in this group of petitions was not by way of any penalty. It was argued that Sub-section (3) of Section 40B of the Act indicated that the words 'otherwise terminated' occurring in Section 40B(1)(a) had a reference to a penal termination only and termination simpliciter was n...
Balubha Mohabatsinh Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR218
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Interestingly, the interpretation and applicability of the provisions of law relating to review analogous to Order 47 Rules 1 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, (Code) are the main questions which are raised. In short, whether a successor in office is competent to review the judgment, order or decision is the sole, but substantial issue which has surfaced in these two petitions. Since both the petitions raise important but identical question, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners who are agriculturists holding agricultural lands had submitted information under Section 10 of the Gujarat Agriculural Lands Ceiling Act, 1961 (G.A.L.C. Act) on coming into force of it. Thereupon, the concerned Mamlatdar and A.L.T. after holding an inquiry held that they are holding land in excess of the ceiling area. The petitioners carried the matter before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The petitioners lost in the revisions before the Gujarat Revenue Tr...
Devshankar Ambalal Jani Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR279
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the question has arisen as to whether the survey settlement of land revenue undertaken by some authority and accepted by the State Government would become survey settlement under Bombay Land Revenue Code and what is the interpretation and the applicability of the provisions of Sections 73-A, 117-R and Section 216 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (B.L.R. Code) are the main questions which have come to the surface for examination and adjudication.2. The petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of the order passed in revision by the respondent No. 1, State of Gujarat, recorded, on 30-11-1993, confirming the order of the Collector passed, on 15-9-1992, directing the petitioner to hand over possession of agricultural lands bearing survey Nos. 655 & 656 (disputed lands) on the ground that there is breach of the provisions of Sections 73-A and 73-AA of the B.L.R. Code.3. The land admeasuring 9 ...
Harshadkumar M. Patel and anr. Vs. K.C.D. Gangwani and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-15-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR67; (1997)ILLJ895Guj
ORDER1. present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 for quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 dated November 15, 1984 and June 16, 1983 respectively. The petitioner No. 1 M/s. Harshadkumar M. Patel is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. Petitioner No. 2 is the power of attorney-holder of petitioner No. 1 firm. The petitioner No. 1 firm is carrying on activities of trading in diamond and precious stones in room No. 23, 'Modeshwari Bhavan' since April 1, 1976. They have also got registration under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 with effect from July 29, 1980. In the said Modeshwari Bhavan there are other tenants and out of these tenants, 22 tenants are diamond cutters and polishers and they are carrying on their business of diamond cutting and polishing in their respective premises. The Inspector of respondent No. 2 made a report to respondent No. 2 claiming therein that these 22 diamond cutters an...
Ambalal Ranchhodji Thakor Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-15-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR795
S.M. Soni, J.1. Leave to amend and add grounds.2. Rule. Mr. K.P. Raval, learned A.P.P., waives service of Rule. In view of the amendment permitted by this Court and carried out by the petitioner, learned Sr. Counsel Mr. H.M. Mehta with Mr. S.C. Patel were heard, as by amendment, the petitioner has challenged the vires of Sections 27, 37 and 52 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('N.D.P.S. Act' for short).3. With the consent of the parties' learned Advocates, as they have waived service of Rule, the matter was heard for final hearing.4. Petitioner, by this application, has prayed for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code for short) read with Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act.5. Few facts necessary to appreciate the contentions are as under:One Motibhai Jinabhai, unarmed Head Constable of Dabhoda Police Station, had arrested one Mukhatyar Ali for possessing ganja (marijuana). Said Mukhatyar Ali had disclosed that he has bought the same from on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »