Gujarat Court October 1997 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.
Vanmalibhai Kalidas Hajari Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)2GLR1044
S.K. Keshote, J.1. As all these Special Civil Applications proceed on the same facts and grounds of challenge to the impugned orders they are being taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Leading arguments in these matters are being advanced by Ms. Vasuben P. Shah, Senior Advocate with respect to the Special Civil Application No. 8102 of 1995, and as such, the facts are being taken from the aforesaid Special Civil Application for the purpose of deciding these Special Civil Applications.3. On 26th September, 1997, at one point of time, This Court thought to implead the Airport Authority of India as a respondent herein but the Counsel for the petitioners has not taken the notice of the said authority for direct service. After hearing the learned Counsels for the parties, I am satisfied that now this order is not required to be carried out.4. One Dahyabhai Vestabhai was the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 378/1 situated at village Dumas. The ho...
Project Technologists Pvt. Ltd. Vs. P.C. Bhargava and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)1GLR700
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Mr. Thakar for the petitioner. This petition came to us earlier on 17th March 1997 before another Judge (Calla J.) when a notice was issued to the respondents. The matter has been pending since then. It is a matter concerning the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It is desirable that it be disposed of at the earliest. Hence, Rule. The same is made returnable forthwith. Mr. J. D. Ajmera waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. V. M. Patel waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 7. Mr. Patel has already filed an affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent No. 3. 2. The facts leading to this controversy are as follows :- The first petitioner is a private limited company engaged in execution of civil engineering contracts. The second petitioner is its Managing Director. The first petitioner at the relevant time was laying down pipeline for respondent No. 3, i.e., Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Respondent Nos. 4 ...
Jadiben and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-20-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2706
ORDERB.C. Patel, J.1. Two applicants have preferred this application for bail as applicants came to be arrested by the Police Investigating CR No. I 226/97 registered at Sherkotda Police Station on the allegation of sprinkling kerosene on the person of the deceased and causing serious burns by throwing at her lighted matchstick.2. The deceased soon after sustaining injuries was taken to the Civil Hospital where her complaint came to be recorded. After investigation being completed Police has filed chargesheet, however, the learned Advocate had thought it fit not to place the chargesheet before the Court. The complaint disclosed allegations as under:3. Deceased Hiraben was residing with her husband, her mother-in-laW-Jediben applicant No. 1, Asha her sister-in-law applicant No. 2, her father in law, her two brothers in law Bharatbhai and Manoj. It is averred by her in the complaint that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law tortured her and her husband being afraid of her mother-in-law wa...
Chhatrasingh Nathusingh Vaghela Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)2GLR1426
S.D. Pandit, J.1. Chhatrasingh Nathusingh Vaghela - the original accused in Cri. Case No. 48 of 1989 has filed the present revision application against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate in Cri. Case No. 48 of 1989 under Section 630 of the Companies Act on 13-6-1997.2. The respondent No. 2 filed this private complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act against the present revision applicant on the allegation that though he retired on 31-3-1986 he did not hand over the possession of the premises allotted to him in lieu of his employment though he was called upon to do so by a notice. The revision applicant had contended that the premises in question were not given to him in lieu of his employment. He was initially paying rent and subsequently the House Rent Allowance (H.R.A.) which he was entitled to get as per the terms and conditions of the settlement was also not being paid to him. It is his contention that the real relation...
Lok Adhikar Sangh Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)1GLR61
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This is a Public Interest Litigation filed at the instance of Lok Adhikar Sangh, a human rights organisation claims to be committed to the defence and protection of civil liberties and democratic rights of the people, and particularly of the poor and downtrodden in the State of Gujarat. The petition has been filed on behalf of Smt. Ushaben Satishbhai Punjani, whose husband Satishbhai Punjani alleged to have been brutally beaten by respondent No. 2 Jitendra Rajgor, District Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar, as a result of which the said Satishbhai Punjani died.2. The say of the petitioner is that on 8-1 -1992, the police picked up the deceased Satishbhai along with two others, namely, Bakul and Narsinh and took them to the police station for interrogation. At the police station, at about 9 p.m., respondent No. 2 came and he called all the three in his chamber. It is alleged that during interrogation, said Shri Rajgor gave them beating with big stick. First Bakul was ...
Sharad B. Pandit Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-16-1997
Reported in: (1998)3GLR2578
S.K. Keshote, J.1. As all these three petitions are identical in nature, the same are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The respondent No. 2, as stated by its Counsel, has been wound up. The Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 states that the Official Liquidator is necessary party to this proceedings. I have examined this matter and I am of considered opinion that ultimately in case the claims of the petitioners for gratuity is accepted, the liability of the payment of the same is of State of Gujarat and respondent No. 2 jointly and severally. However, that amount has to be deducted by the State Government from the compensation to be paid to respondent No. 3, i.e., the amount found payable to the owner of the closed textile which has been nationalised under the provisions of the Gujarat Closed Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1986). As the State Government is a party here, I do not consider i...
Harsukhbhai Hansarajbhai Kachhadiya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-15-1997
Reported in: (1998)1GLR710
D.G. Karia, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of his detention order dated June 27, 1997 at Annexure 'A' to the petition.2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Junagadh, respondent No. 3 herein in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Black marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (for short, the Act of 1980). The order detaining the petitioner on 27-6-1997 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of blue kerosene of Public Distribution System essential to the community. The third respondent also furnished the grounds of detention to the petitioner on the same day, i.e., on 27-6-1997. It has been alleged that under Section 2 of the Essential Commodities Act, kerosene is an essential commodity and is declared as such under the Essential Commodities Act. Gujarat Ess...
Narmadaben V. Parmar Vs. Taluka Development Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-15-1997
Reported in: (1998)1GLR225
M.S. Shah, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution raises an interesting and neat question of law whether the Chairman of the Social Justice Committee of the Taluka Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) elected by the members of the said Committee from amongst themselves can be removed by its members by passing a motion of 'no-confidence'.2. The petitioner is an elected member of Kheralu Taluka Panchayat-respondent No. 2 herein. In her capacity as a member of Taluka Panchayat the petitioner was elected as a member of the Social Justice Committee of the Taluka Panchayat. The Committee has five members and from amongst the members of the Committee the petitioner was elected as the Chairman of the said Committee on January 18. 1996. Thereafter on April 19, 1997, the remaining four members of the Committee moved a motion of no-confidence and therefore, the Taluka Development Officer, who is the Secretary of the Panchayat, informed the petitioner that the mot...
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. A.M.C. Nivrut Karmachari Sangh and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-14-1997
Reported in: (1998)1GLR25
S.D. Pandit, J.1. The original respondent in S.C.A. No. 4028 of 1988 has filed the present appeal against the order of the learned single Judge passed on 14/18th of July, 1995, 2nd, 3rd and 4th August 1995. Reported in 1995(2) GLR 1856: 1996(1) GLH 134. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had preferred S.C.A. No. 4028 of 1988. The respondent No. 1 Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Nivrut Karmachari Sangh hereinafter referred to as the 'Sangh' is an Association of retired employees of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation who retired prior to 1-1-1983. The Municipal Corporation of the city of Ahmedabad was having Contributory Provident Fund Scheme C.P.F. Scheme for its employees till the year 1983. By the Resolution No. 790 dated 10-6-1983 the Municipal Corporation of the city of Ahmedabad introduced a pension scheme and said pension scheme was implemented from 1-1-1983. The employees of the Corporation who were members of C.P.F. Scheme were given option to either continue the said scheme or to swi...
Sanchalakshri, Shri Durga Vidyalaya and anr. Vs. Vijaykumar Raghuvirpr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-14-1997
Reported in: (1998)2GLR1463
N.N. Mathur, J.1. By way of this Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks direction to quash and set aside the order dated 1st September 1997 passed by the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal whereby the order of termination of respondent No. 1 dated 15th March 1994 has modified and penalty of stoppage of one increment with future effect is inflicted.2. The brief facts of the case are as under:Respondent No. 1 - Original applicant was declared as surplus teacher on closure of Pallavi Vidyalaya, Paldi, Ahmedabad and was sent to Durga Vidyalaya - the petitioner school to join service with effect from 25th November 1988. His service book was not sent by Pallavi Vidyalaya to the petitioner school after great persuasion as late as on 23rd November 1992. Respondent No. 1 wanted his pay to be fixed as per the revision of the pay-scale in accordance with the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission. It may be stated that the said recommen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »