Gujarat Court January 1997 Judgments
Jayantilal Valjibhai Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-1997
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1295
S.D. Pandit, J.1. The pleadings in this petition are complete. I have heard both the sides on merits at length. I, therefore, proceed to dispose of this petition finally.The petitioner is running a factory at Junagadh and he has obtained electric connection and his consumer No. is 34101/58621/3. In the month of June, 1995 his old meter No. 6009189 was not working properly, and, therefore, on 21st June, 1995, the same was removed by the respondent and a new meter was installed in the place of old meter. According to the petitioner, the meter bearing No. 210134 was initially running very fast and it stopped running after 2 or 3 days. Therefore, by letter dated 21st June, 1995, he informed the respondent about the non-working of the meter. He had also sent a telegram. As per his claim, thereafter, on 27th July, 1995, the respondent removed the said meter and they installed a new meter.2. On 13th February, 1996, the respondent informed the present petitioner that they want to check and tes...
Tag this Judgment!V.T. Mehta Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, I.P.C.L. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-30-1997
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2049
R.A. Mehta, A.C.J. 1. The three appellants sought the benefit to voluntary retirement scheme from the respondent - Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited, and they were denied the said benefit and their resignations were accepted without retirement benefits. Therefore, they have preferred the petitions which have been dismissed by the learned single Judge and therefore, these three appeals. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that all the three appellants fulfil the requirements of the eligibility of voluntary retirement scheme as they had completed 10 years of service. 3. The refusal to give the benefits of voluntary retirement scheme is challenged on two grounds, namely, (1) that reasons for refusal have not been recorded in writing; and (2) that the benefit of the scheme has been given to several other persons similarly situated and has been denied to the three appellants and therefore, the denial is discriminatory. 4. It is true that the reasons are not recorded in...
Tag this Judgment!Arjunbhai J. Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-29-1997
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2461
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The facts and grounds of challenge of the impugned order of termination of services of the petitioners are common in all these three Special Civil Applications, and as such, the same are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of each case have to be taken separately which are as under: Special Civil Application No. 4890 of 1983:The petitioner submitted an application in the office of the Gujarat Public Service Commission for appointment on the post of a driver. The petitioner, as per his case, was called for interview and after verifying his name duly registered with the employment exchange since 1976, he was called for driving test under the letter dated 29th December, 1977. On 2nd January, 1978, the driving test of the petitioner was stated to be taken. Under the order Annexure 'C on the record of this Special Civil Application dated 30th January, 1978 of the Secretary of the Commission, the petitioner was given appointment as driver on trial basis for...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat and anr. Vs. Kanaiyalal Manilal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)1GLR40
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This group of Criminal Revision Applications has been directed against the order dated 22-4-1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Ahmedabad.The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, in exercise of powers under Section 20 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1987') while passing the order of' reception to Mental Hospital. Ahmedabad of Mentally ill persons in Lunatic Case Nos. 19 of 1995. 29 of 1995. 4 of 1995 and 18 of 1994. directed the applicants to deposit the amount of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 350/-. Rs. 400/-. Rs. 300/- Rs. 400/- per month respectively in each case It may be stated that the provisions of the Act were invoked by the learned Magistrate on recording the evidence of the concerned applicants and the witnesses It appears that the order of giving directions to make the payment personally were challenged by the individual applicants by way of filing Revision before the Sessions Judg...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Babulal Balkrishna Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-29-1997
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1700
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties.The petitioner who was holding the post of class I, i.e., the Chief Town Planner and Architectural Advisor, Gandhinagar Capital Project, filed this Special Civil Application and prayed therein that the action of the respondents of withholding the amount of gratuity payable to him be declared null and void, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and has also prayed that further direction be issued to the respondents to pay him the amount of gratuity together with interest with effect from 1-9-1989 till the date of payment. Prayer has also been made for quashing the order dated 25-8-1989, under which the respondent No. 1 has ordered for continuation of inquiry against the petitioner after retirement.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 18-10-1988 for misconduct alleged therein. The period of misconduct alleged is of 1...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Karsan Meghji Dabhi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1396; (2000)IIILLJ1174Guj
ORDERJ.N. Bhatt, J.1. Rule. Service of Rule is waived by Mr. Rathod for the respondents.2. Whether or not the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act) is competent for passing order after determining the amount of gratuity payable to the workman under the settlement, is the important question raised before this Court in this batch of petitions under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Incidentally, it also leads to interpretation and applicability of the provisions of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act.3. The petitioner Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation) has questioned the legality and validity of the common order and judgment recorded by the Labour Court, Junagadh, on December 28, 1995, in Recovery Application Nos. 206 of 1994 to 225 of 1994 exercising powers under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act in favour of the respondents-workmen. Some of them are ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdishbhai Chandulal Parikh Vs. Ambalal Sankalchand Mehta and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1714
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.Challenge is made by the petitioner by this Special Civil Application to the order Annexure 'D', dated 27th September 1983 of the respondent No. 4 granting stay of the election of the society till final decision of the suit pending before the Board of Nominees.2. The facts of the case are that the respondent No. 3 is a co-operative housing society, registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1961). The petitioner and respondents No. 1 and 2 are its members. In April 1970, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were elected as Chairman and Secretary respectively of the society and they took charge of the record of the society from the outgoing Chairman and Secretary. The annual general meeting of the society had not been called for, its accounts were not audited and the office-bearers were acting prejudicially to the interest of the society, numerous proceedings, namely, (i) inquiry under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Chhaganbhai B. Patel Vs. Sitaben J. Bhanabhai Rathod and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: (1998)1GLR59
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the Special Civil Application. Challenge is made by the petitioner to the order of the Deputy Collector, dated 3-9-19X4 under which the sale of the land in dispute, made in favour of the petitioner by Jivabhai Bhanabhai was held to be in breach of the provisions of Section 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and same has been ordered 10 be cancelled and further order has been made for vesting of the land in dispute in the Government free from all encumbrances, and the order of the Secretary. Revenue Department dated 12th April, 1985 under which the aforesaid order of the Deputy Collector was confirmed in the revisional powers.2. The Counsel for the petitioner contended that the provisions of Section 73AA of the Code were enacted from 1-2-1981 whereas the Banakhat was entered into between the parties on 8-12-1980 and the part-payment of consideration of the sale Rs. 4,000/- has...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Setwara K. Mavji and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-27-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ3471
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. This appeal by the State of Gujarat is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 20-5-1983, rendered in Sessions Case No. 50/82, by the learned Sessions Judge, Jatnnagar, wherein Satwara Kalyanji Mavji and his father Satwara Mavji Bhavan-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively who came to be tried for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 34 and 114 of I.P.C. were at the end of the trial ordered to be acquitted.2. According to the prosecution, the incident in question wherein Bai Raliyat came to be strangulated to death allegedly by Kalyanji and Mavji his father, took place on 15-3-1982, at about 10-00 a. m. at Dhrol in the house of the respondents. Incidentally, it may be stated that the deceased Raliyatben, aged 22, was a wife of Kalyanji-accused No. 1. According to the P.W. 2, Dr. G.M. Panara, he was the Medical Officer at Dhrol and on 15-3-1982 after 12-00 Noon, P.W. 2 Chaku Arjan and Kalyanji Mavji (accused No. 1) approached him telling th...
Tag this Judgment!Sangam Plastic Centre Vs. P.K. Tiwari, Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-1997
Reported in: [1997]226ITR260(Guj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Rule. Service of rule is waived by learned counsel for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petition is directed against the order dt. 19th Jan., 1996 passed by the CIT, Gujarat under S. 273A of the IT Act, 1961 rejecting the petitioner's application for waiver of interest under S. 139(8) and S. 215 and levy of penalty for late filing of return under S. 271(1)(a) in respect of asst. yrs. 1979-80 to 1983-84 for various sums on each count detailed in the order. 3. It has been found in the order itself that the assessee had filed returns of income voluntarily, and without issue of any notice under S. 139(2) or S. 148 of the Act. It is also found that the assessee co-operated in the finalisation of the proceedings under the IT Act. The only reason given in the order for rejecting it was that amount due on account of the penalties and interests have not been paid by the assessee and stay was operating only upto 25th May, 1990. According to the CIT the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »