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.
Sabhapati, Nagar Panchayat, Karamsad Vs. Amrish Natubhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR113
M.R. Calla, J.1. This Special Civil Application is directed against the order dated 15-9-1995 passed by the Labour Court, Anand in Misc. Civil Application No. 44 of 1993 read with the Award dated 6-8-1993 passed in Reference No. 434 of 1992. Nagar Panchayat, Karamsad became Municipal Borough by a Notification issued under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. The respondents-workmen had been appointed in the Nagar Panchayat, Karamsad. The respondents were working with the Nagar Panchayat as Clerks for a period of 4 to 6 years at the time when their services were terminated on 31-6-1987. There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the respondents were employees of Nagar Panchayat, Karamsad or whether they were working with a Contractor of Nagar Panchayat, Karamsad. On 15-4-1994 the Nagar Panchayat, Karamsad became the Municipal Borough and it is the case of the Municipal Borough that the respondents had been employed by the Contractor of Nagar Panchayat, Karamsad and they were ...
Gujarat State Road Trans. Corpn. Vs. Mer Ranmal Bhima (Deceased) Throu ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-05-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR325
R.A. Mehta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.1.1992, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Junagadh, in M.A.C. Petition No. 220 of 1985, which was filed by the heirs of the driver of a Jeep who died in an accident involving the Jeep and a bus of the appellant Corporation.2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the appellant's driver was negligent to the extent of 2/3rd and the Jeep driver was negligent to the extent of 1/3rd only. According to the appellant the Jeep driver was fully and solely negligent.3. The Tribunal has considered the F.I.R., the panchnama and the surrounding circumstances and the S.T. driver though available had nothing to contribute much while he was the best person to depose. Having regard to the circumstances and viewing from the panchnama including the distance covered by the bus even after the accident which was about 60 ft. whereas the brake marks were only 7 f...
State of Gujarat Vs. Mansurbhai Motibhai Damor
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR620
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. The three most important questions in focus arising for our consideration in this Acquittal Appeal are: (i) Whether in a Corruption Case, warranting proof of three principal ingredients of offence of bribe, viz., Demand, Offer and Acceptance, and in that case even if the direct evidence consisting of the complainant and first panch witness (directed to hear and see the bribe transaction) turn hostile to the prosecution then even merely relying upon the circumstantial evidence on the point comprising of the second panch and the Investigating Officer, Court can still record order of conviction and sentence? (ii) Whether by merely mechanically affixing the label of the 'Selected panch' to panch witnesses when in fact there is indeed no material brought on the record to indicate that they were so selected by the Investigating Officer in conspiracy with the complainant or for some oblique motive by himself alone with a view to falsely implicate and secure conviction of the...
New Education Girls High School Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR741
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties. The challenge is made by the petitioner in this writ petition to the order of the District Education Officer dated 17th March, 1982, Annexure 'F' under which 5% of the grant of the institution was ordered to be deducted for the year 1981-82. Against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Director of Education which has been dismissed. The matter was taken up by the petitioner to the State Government in the second appeal, but without any relief. The Director of Education and the State Government have confirmed the order of the District Education Officer. Hence, this Special Civil Application before this Court.2. One lady teacher, Kum. N.S. Trivedi was declared as supernumerary teacher by the New Education High School. It is the case of the petitioner that New Education High School wherefrom the aforesaid lady teacher was declared as supernumerary teacher was run by the same Trust which runs the petitioner's school, na...
Bhanubhai Nagjibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-1996
Reported in: (1996)2GLR803
B.C. Patel, J.1. Detenu, by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order of detention passed by District Magistrate, Ahmedabad on June 18, 1995 in exercise of powers conferred on him by Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 ('PASA' for short) and has prayed for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus directing his release and quashing the order.2. Earlier, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 4914 of 1995 challenging the same order of detention, before surrendering. The said petition was withdrawn unconditionally on July 5, 1995.3. It appears that immediately after surrendering to the authorities, the detenu filed Special Civil Application No. 6370 of 1995 in the month of July 1995. From the record, it appears that the matter was heard by this Court (Coram: S.D. Shah, J.) and the learned Counsel for the petitioner was fully heard. The matter was adjourned for hearing at the in...
Arasuri Ambajimata Mandir Devsthan Trust Vs. Joitabhai A. Patel, Shram ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1187; (1998)IIILLJ1129Guj
M.R. Calla, J.1. The respondent joined the services of the petitioner trust, i.e., Arasuri Ambajimata Mandir Devsthan Trust on September 23, 1974 and he was then appointed as Special Development Officer with effect from April 1, 1988 and at that time he was given the salary of Rs. 2,371/- p.m. Later on with effect from June 1, 1989 his salary was at Rs. 2,586/- p.m. It is the case of the petitioner that Respondent No. 1 had resigned in January, 1991 at that time his salary was Rs. 3,147/- and therefore, he was drawing the salary more than Rs. 2,500/- p.m. after June 1, 1989 and at the time when he resigned in January, 1991. The respondent claimed gratuity and in this regard it appears that the Administrator of the petitioner Trust sent a letter dated April 15, 1991 to Law Department of the Government of Gujarat. The letter dated November 13, 1991 was sent to the Administrator of the petitioner trust by Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Law; Department informing the Administrato...
Thakor Kesaji Ranaji (Decd.) by His Heirs and Lrs. Thakor Lilaji Kesaj ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR849
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The Tenancy Versus Employment is the central theme and heart of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India involving applicability and interpretation of provisions of Sections 2(18), 4 and 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Bombay Tenancy Act for short). Whether the petitioners are the tenants or the servants in respect of three agricultural properties bearing Survey Nos. 3911/1, 3911/2 and 3909 situated in the sim of village Vadnagar, Taluka Kheralu, District Mehsana belonging to the respondent ('disputed lands' for short), is the sole but substantial issue which has come up for consideration and adjudication in this petition in the light of the aforesaid provisions of Bombay Tenancy Act.2. With a view to appreciate the merits of this petition, a few material facts tracing shortly the long history of litigation which is pending in the high and long legal conduit pipe since more than two decades, obviously, would require nar...
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Jarnal Sinh D. Ramgadhia
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR698; (1997)ILLJ774Guj
ORDER1. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 763 of 1996 is the Works Manager of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. Respondent therein is a workman who has filed the counter-petition being Special Civil Application No. 1564 of 1996. Both the petitions are concerning the same order of a Conciliation Officer passed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity). Hence, both the matters have been heard together and are being disposed of together by this common judgment. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1564 of 1996 is hereinafter refereed to as the management whereas the respondent in Special Civil Application No. 763 of 1996 who is the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1564 of 1996 is hereinafter referred to as workmen. 2. The workman was working as an artisan (Category-B) in a Coach Shop of the management. It is alleged against the workman that on February 27, 1993 the workman had stolen 17 pieces of sc...
Ramjibhai Dayarambhai Joshi Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1(1998)ACC81; (1997)1GLR289
C.K. Thakker, J.Admitted.Mr. Y.F. Mehta learned A.G.P. waives service of notice of admission. In facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for hearing today.1. This appeal is filed against an order of the learned Single Judge dated March 26, 1996. By that order the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition filed by the appellant-petitioner to release the vehicle - a jeep car bearing No. GJ-8T-8049 detained by P.S.I., Tharad in exercise of powers under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. It is the case of the appellant that he owned a jeep car bearing above number. It was detained by P.S.I., Tharad on November 5, 1995 on allegation that though the vehicle in question was a delivery van (goods vehicle) and, hence, could not have carried passengers, certain passengers were carried in it. According to the appellant, the action of detention of the vehicle was contrary to law as neither the appellant nor his driver committ...
Desha Mulji Vs. Divisional Controller, G.S.R.T.C.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR136
S.D. Pandit, J.1. Desha Mulji-the petitioner before me was working as a driver under the Divisional Controller, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Junagadh Division. On 27-4-1975 he was driving the bus of the Corporation from Una to Rajkot. When he was near Akshaya Mandir in Gondal town, a bus running from Bhuj to Junagadh came from the opposite direction and there was a head on collision. In the said accident, four persons met with death and 46 persons sustained injuries.2. On account of the said accident, the respondent started departmental inquiry against the present petitioner for alleged act of rash and negligent driving and causing damage to the bus. During the pendency of the said departmental inquiry, criminal prosecution took place against the present petitioner.Similarly, proceeding under the Motor Vehicles Act for claiming damages was also initiated before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal gave its decision on 31-12-1976. In the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »