Gujarat Court August 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.
Keshavlal Chhaganlal Vaghela Vs. Commissioner (Eng.), Ahmedabad Munici ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-30-1996
Reported in: 2(1997)ACC626; (1997)3GLR2196
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties. The petitioner, a driver in the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad, filed this Special Civil Application challenging thereunder the order of the respondent, Annexure 'A', dated 8.6.1983, under which he was directed to pay 50% of the amount of compensation awarded to the injured in accident by the motor vehicle which, at the relevant time, the petitioner was driving. While driving the vehicle of the Corporation, the petitioner injured two cyclists. The cyclists filed M. A.C. petition No. 27 of 1981 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.), Ahmedabad. The learned Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner was a party in the aforesaid M.A.C. case before the M.A.C.T., Ahmedabad. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,930.80 as a compensation to the injured. The Tribunal has held that the petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. Under the order impugned in this Special Civil Applica...
Radhaben Krishnadas Pathak Vs. Mugatlal Chhotalal Oza
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-30-1996
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2148
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The petitioners have questioned the order passed below Ex. 31 in Civil Appeal No. 170 of 1984 by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad on 1-4-1996 whereby the application for production of additional evidence during the pendency of the appeal came to be rejected, by invoking the aids of the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (Code).2. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs-landlords and the respondent is the original defendant-tenant. They are hereinafter referred to as the landlords and tenant for the sake of convenience and brevity. The landlords instituted H.R.P. Suit No. 3582 of 1980 in the Court of Small Causes, Ahmedabad against the tenant on following grounds under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act) :(1) arrears of rent;(2) reasonable and bona fide personal requirement; and(3) acquisition of suitable residential accommodation.The trial Court accepted the fact of tena...
Mansukhbhai Jivabhai and ors. Vs. Bhavnagar Mahanagarpalika
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-30-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR542
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties. The petitioners filed this Special Civil Application before this Court in which challenge is made by them to the Annexure 'A', the Award of the Labour Court in Ref. (I.C.R.) No. 720 of 1979 dated 5-1-1982.2. The services of the petitioners were terminated and they raised an industrial dispute which has been referred to the Labour Court. The petitioners have come up with the case that they were appointed on daily wages in the Bhavnagar Mahanagarpalika and they have been retrenched without any justification. The retrenchment has been stated to be illegal as it has been made in violation of provisions of Section 25F.3. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioners were appointed only for a specific period and for a specific work. The specific work was of water scarcity. It is not a case of retrenchment but their services came to an end on completion of the work for which they were appointed. It is stated by the respondent ...
Arvind Investment Consultant Vs. Presto Finance Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-29-1996
Reported in: [1998]94CompCas350(Guj)
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Whether an appropriate case is made out for passing a winding up order of the respondent-company, Presto Finance Limited, under section 433 read with section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, is the sole question which has come up for adjudication in this petition. 2. The petitioner, Arvind Investment Consultant, is a proprietary firm of Smt. Rekha Arvindbhai Shah, who has filed this petition for an order of winding up of Presto Finance Limited. The petitioner is carrying on the business of investment. The respondent-company, Presto Finance Limited was incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and its registered office is at Ahmedabad. The respondent-company was established for the following objects : '1. To carry on the business as finance company and to assist in or to finance and to carry on all kinds of financial operations including but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, long-term/short-term loans, seed capital, bridge loan, workin...
Mulabhai B. Rathod Vs. Chief Town Planner and Archi Advisor, Capital P ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-27-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Guj157
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the Special Civil Application. The petitioner President of Shree Karmachari Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Gandhinagar, filed this petition before this Court and prayer has been made therein for quashing of the orders annexures 'A' and 'B', under which the authorities have declined to grant permission for raising construction of the houses on the land in dispute. This permission was necessary in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1960).2. The society has claimed itself to be the owner and in occupation of the land comprised in Survey Nos. 56, 57, 58/1, 58/2, 64/1, 79 and 88. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid land is covered in the Control area declared under the provisions of the Act 1960. With a view to obtain 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) for construction of residential houses uncooperative basis on the ...
Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-27-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ145Guj
S.D. Shah, J.1. 1 to 6 xxx xxx xxx. 7. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that it becomes the duty of this Court to direct the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) working as Conciliation Officer to conclude and submit his report of outcome of conciliation proceedings within six weeks from today to the appropriate authority. In view of the provisions of Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 there is an obligation to see that during the pendency of conciliation proceedings before a Conciliation Officer in respect of industrial dispute no employer shall in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceedings, save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending. In my opinion, this provision fully protects and casts obligation on the Court of law also to protect the workm...
Kanodiya Nareshkumar Mithalal Vs. Dr. Dineshbhai Rudhabhai Parmar and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-27-1996
Reported in: (1998)1GLR372
N.J. Pandya, J.1. The petition relates to the election held in the month of February 1995. The petitioner was contesting the election from 26-Jamnagar Rural (Reserved S.C.) Constituency for the State Assembly. He was defeated by respondent No. 1. The grievance made in the petition is that respondent No. 1 succeeded in the election by corrupt practice. The corrupt practices alleged are as under:(i) that the petitioner was not only a sitting member but a member of the Cabinet of the State Government ruled, at the relevant time, by the Indian National Congress and he had got printed a hand-bill setting out the alleged achievement of respondent No. 1. What is objectionable to the said hand-bill Annexure B page 30 is that National Flag was printed diagonally on the top right hand comer on its reverse side of the hand-bill;(ii) that an anti-social element was not only given protection by respondent No. 1 but had seen to it that he is not detained under PASA, though a warrant was issued again...
Hinaben Harishbhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-21-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR607
M.H. Kadri, J.1. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging legality and validity of judgment and order dated July 19, 1988 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No. 137 of 1987 whereby she is convicted under Sections 302, 307 and 309 of the I.P. Code and sentenced to R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P. Code. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not imposed any sentence on the appellant under Secs 307 and 309 of the I.P. Code. Brief facts as unfolded at the trial are as under:2. The appellant who was married with PW 10 Harishbhai Maganbhai Patel was residing at Ichhapore, Surat. Out of the wedlock she had one son Sandip and one daughter Bhavna. It is alleged that the husband of the appellant did not like her. She was, therefore, harassed, beaten, ill-treated and subjected to cruelty by her in-laws. In a fit of disappointment and annoyance she tried to commit suicide o...
Babu @ Salim @ Rakesh Narendrakumar Trivedi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-20-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR519
M.R. Calla, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 19-9-1992 passed against the present appellant by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Sessions Case No. 233 of 1991. The appellant has been convicted under Section 304 Part I I.P.C. and sentenced to 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo 1 month's further imprisonment. He has also been convicted under Section 308 I.P.C. and sentenced to 2 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo 7 days R.I. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently and he has been acquitted of the offence under Sections 302 and 504 of I.P.C. and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act.2. The case of the prosecution is that with regard to an incident, which took place at village Bakrol on 14-4-1991 between 11-30 and 11-45 P.M., a F.I.R. was lodged on the same night, i.e., the night intervening 14th April 1991 and 15th April 1991 at 1-30 A.M. at Police Station, Vallabh Vidya...
Chhotabhai H. Parmar Through His Heirs Rambhai Vs. Mahendrabhai G. Pat ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2210
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The petitioner filed this Special Civil Application before this Court challenging thereunder the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN. B.A. 429 of 1979 decided on 27th September, 1979 and the order of the Tribunal in Review Application No. TEN. C.A. 52 of 1979 dated 20th June, 1980 in the matter of the application filed by him under the provisions of Section 32(1)B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1948).2. The land in dispute comprises in the survey No. 865/1-A admeasuring 1 acre and 21 gunthas. The original landlord of this land was one Lakhabhai Ranchhodbhai who gifted this land to the respondent by gift deed dated 9-7-1956. The petitioner was the tenant of this land. The petitioner has come up with a case that the respondent herein evicted him from the land in question otherwise than under the provisions of the Act. 1948. The petitioner filed an application for the restorat...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »