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.
Zabir Mohmad Hafezi Ismail Patel and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR140
A.N. Divecha, J.1. In all these three petitions the petitioner is common. The subject-matter in all these three petitions is one parcel of land bearing Survey No. 69/1 admeasuring 3 acres 22 gunthas situated at village Nandelav in taluka and district Bharuch (the disputed land for convenience). It originally belonged to respondent No. 3 in Special Civil Application No. 624 of 1987 who is respondent No. 2 in the remaining two petitions. For the sake of convenience I shall refer to him in this judgment as the vendor and the petitioner as the vendee. These three petitions are inter-related in the sense that the order of 1st February 1985 is challenged in Special Civil Application No. 624 of 1987 and consequential orders pursuant thereto are challenged in the other two petitions. Common questions of fact and law are found arising in all these three petitions. I have, therefore, thought it fit to dispose of all these three petitions by this common judgment of mine.2. The facts giving rise t...
Bai Jasud Wd/O. Kantilal @ Fulchand Anopchand (Deed.) Through Her Heir ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR842
A.N. Divecha, J.1. Can a subordinate Court be permitted to read a judgment of its superior Court differently and in a twisted manner so as to assign a meaning altogether different from its apparent meaning on the face of it? Will such attempt on the part of such subordinate Court not amount to destruction of judicial discipline and contempt of its superior Court? These questions come to the forefront in the context of the challenge to the order passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court on 24th February 1994 below the application at Exh. 68 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 379 of 1976 in this revisional application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ('the Act' for brief) read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. By the impugned order, the learned Judges of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court directed both the parties to argue the entire appeal on all grounds after ordering the application to be de...
Gujarat University Vs. Samir Uppal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-08-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR185
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of a judgment and order, dated April 17, 1996 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 1901 of 1996.2. Letters Patent Appeal No. 528 of 1996 is filed by Gujarat University whereas Letters Patent Appeal No. 530 of 1996 is filed by three appellants who were original respondents No. 4, 7 and 10 respectively in Special Civil Application No. 1901 of 1996. That petition was filed by four petitioners, inter alia, praying to this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside a decision of the Vice-Chancellor, Gujarat University, respondent No. 1 bifurcating seats of Master of Dental Surgery Course ('M.D.S.' for short) by providing admission twice a year instead of once a year. A prayer was also made to declare that the action of the University in changing the rule by providing admission to M.D.S. Course twice a year was ...
State of Gujarat Vs. Manharbhai Maganbhai Talpada
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-06-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR269
M.R. Calla, J.1. Both these Criminal Appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 31-7-1995 passed by the Special Judge, Vadodara in Criminal Misc. Application No. 64 of 1995 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 974 of 1994 and both these appeals are, therefore, decided by this common order.2. By the aforesaid order dated 31-7-1995 the Special Judge, Vadodara allowed the Application No. 64 of 1995 and the Application No. 974 of 1994 issuing attachment with respect to the property shown in Schedule 'A' as described in the impugned order dated 31-7-1995, i.e., cash amount of Rs. 5,97,000/- and immovable property, viz., S. No. 551/2 Block No. 564 situated at village Chuva, District Kheda standing in the name of Smt. Shardaben shown in Schedule 'F' as described in the impugned order. For rest of the properties mentioned under Schedule 'F' no attachment was granted. The property shown in Schedules 'B' to 'E' were ordered to be returned on furnishing solvent security of Rs....
Nanduben Gobarbhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-06-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR197
H.R. Shelat, J.1. The appellants through these appeals, challenge the judgment dated 8th October, 1991, delivered by the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in Sessions Case No. 94 of 1988, convicting them of the offence under Section 302, 307 read with 149, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing each one to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, for the offence under Section 302 read with 149, rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under Section 307, rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 148, but inflicting no separate sentence with regard to the offence under Section 147, Indian Penal Code.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that about 5 Kms. away from village Kantasar two rivers meet where there is a dam. Between the two rivers, there is a doab used as grazing land, belonging to the Government. As usual Vagaji Bala, Mulji Bikha, Mepa Sagram, Popat Bijal and Sura Bav, the shepherds, had, on 6th July 1988, in t...
Gujarat State Construction Corporation Vs. Ghanshyambhai and Bros.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-05-1996
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2302
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Rule Service of Rule is waived by Mr. S.B. Vakil on behalf of the respondent.This is an application for review of the judgment and order recorded by this Court in Civil Revision Application No. 263 of 1989 on April 10, 1995, whereby, time for arbitration proceedings came to be enlarged exercising powers under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act.2. This Court after enlarging time under Section 28 directed the Arbitrator to Dispose of the disputes under reference as expeditiously as possible but not later than four months from the date of receipt of service of notice to both the parties after receiving writ of this Court. When the said revision was heard, the attention of this Court was not drawn to the provisions of the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 Section 3 came into force on 5th December, 1991 and the remaining provisions of the Act came into force on 1st January, 1994 as per the notification published in the Official Gazette. T...
Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Saraspur Mills Ltd. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-03-1996
Reported in: (1998)1GLR581
N.J. Pandya, J. 1. On earlier occasion when the matter was heard, it was pointed out that the respondent-Company is under liquidation. This prompted the appellant to request for joining for Official Liquidator as a party. This request was granted on 18-3-1996. In response to the notice issued to the Official Liquidator, we have got an endorsement to the effect that the Company is not under liquidation. Obviously, therefore, there is no question of making him a party. Hence, the name of the Official Liquidator as a party-respondent is deleted. 2. So far as the question involved in the appeal is concerned, by now, it is covered by judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in Royal Talkies, Hyderabad v. E.S.I Corpn., AIR 1978 SC 1478. 3. The appellant is the Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation and in course of his inquiry in connection with the working of the respondent-Mill, it was noticed that there was one Deepak Yarn Trading Company which was doing the...
Khemchand R. Koshti and ors. Vs. Abad Dairy
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-03-1996
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1204; (1998)IIILLJ278Guj
M.R. Calla, J.1. These 64 Special Civil Applications are based on identical facts and raise common questions of law and hence the same are decided by this common judgment and order.2.The learned Counsel Dr. Sinha, Mr. Koshti, Mr. Patel and Mr. Raval have submitted that for the purpose of pleadings they would refer to the-pleadings and the documents contained in Special Civil Application Nos. 179 of 1995,249 of 1995 and 7744 of 1991 and, therefore, the references, which are made hereinafter to the pleadings, documents, etc., are taken from the Special Civil Application Nos. 179 of 1995, 249 of 1995 and 7744 of 1991.3. There are 2 petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 179 of 1995, 46 petitioners is Special Civil Application No. 249 of 1995, 13 petitioners in Special Civil Application No.737 of 1995, 3 petitioners is Special Civil Application No. 8216 of 1995 and initially there were 59 petitioners in Special Civil Application No.4797 of 1990, but later on 58 separate one page peti...
Anilaben J. Joshi and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-03-1996
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2522
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of the judgment and order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 26-7-1993 recorded in Revision Application No. 125 of 1992 whereby the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Collector, Valsad in Ceiling Appeal No. 12 of 1992 dated 26-6-1992 remanding the ease to the Mamlatdar, came to be confirmed while dismissing the revision on merits.Facts run in a narrow compass. One Jaikrishna Ramashankar Joshi had filled in form No. 2 under Section 10 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (Guj. Act No. XXVII of 1961) (G.A.L.C. Act). In the said form, it was stated that he was holding 10 acres 4.5 gunthas of agricultural land and also 10 acres of agricultural lands at village Haladpada, Taluka Dahanu in Maharashtra State. The declarant had also stated in the form that there were 4 members in his family and there was no excess or surplus...
Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Maheshwari Devi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-02-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR61
M.R. Calla, J.1. This Special Civil Application has been preferred by the Oil And Ntural Gas Commission ('O.N.G.C' for short) against the Award dated 28-4-1988 passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal at Ahmedabad in Reference (I.T.C.) No. 31 of 1987 whereby the respondent-workman has been deemed to be in continuous service from February, 1985 and ordered to be reinstated as such and the Management has been ordered to pay all the wages due to her.2. The husband of the present respondent-workman was working as a contingent employee with the O.N.G.C. for a period of about 11 years and he expired on 29-10-1983 while he was performing his duties. After the death of the husband of the present respondent-workman, she approached the O.N.G.C. for employment and the case of the O.N.G.C. is that out of sheer sympathy, employment was given to her by the O.N.G.C. for a specified period purely on temporary need basis in April 1984. According to the case of the O.N.G.C., as stated in para 3 of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »