Gujarat Court June 1997 Judgments
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Ship Trading Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-30-1997
Reported in: 1998ACJ1003; (1997)3GLR736
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. By this appeal the appellant, original opponent No. 3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., has questioned legality and validity of the judgment and award dated 24.12.1996 delivered in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 336 of 1992 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar.2. The main question which has come up before us for consideration and adjudication in this appeal is 'whether the vehicular accident in question could be said to have occurred in a 'public place' as defined under Section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (new Act)?'3. In order to examine and appreciate the main question, we would like to highlight skeleton projection of the facts. The respondent No. 1 Gujarat Ship Trading Corporation which is the original claimant 'Corporation' by filing the aforesaid claim petition claimed Rs. 2,58,000/- under Section 166 of the new Act, and, inter alia, contended that the goods belonging to it came to be damaged on account of rash and negligent use of...
Tag this Judgment!Savitaben D/O Balkabhai Raisingbhai Vs. Shankerbhai Naikabhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-26-1997
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2653
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The petitioner challenges by this Special Civil Application, the order, Annexure 'A' of the Assistant Collector, Dahod, in Fragmentation Act Case No. 2791 of 1983 dated 6-11-1984 and that of the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department dated 17th June, 1986 in revision application No. SRD/Con/17 of 1985. Under the later order, the revisional authority confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector, Dahod dated 6-11-1984.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner purchased two agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 180/1 and 180/2 by registered sale deed executed on 2-6-1982 and 14-6-1982 by the holders of those lands in her favour. As both these lands were fragment under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1947) the Assistant Collector, Dahod, initiated proceedings under Section 7 read with Section 9 of the Act, 1947, for the purpose of impeaching the transactions aforesa...
Tag this Judgment!Babubhai Kalaji Vs. Lilachand Kalidas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-26-1997
Reported in: (1998)3GLR2208
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. A short but interesting question, which has come up for consideration and adjudication in this revision under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ('Bombay Rent Act'), is whether the petitioner-tenant is liable for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 12(3)(b) or not. The respondent herein is the original plaintiff-landlord and the petitioner is the original defendant-tenant against whom eviction suit, being H.R.P. No. 231 of 1970, came to be filed in the Court of the Small Causes, Ahmedabad, on mainly following three grounds:(1) For reasonable and bona fide requirement of the demised shop under Section 13(1)(g);(2) For illegal transfer and sub-letting under Section 13(1)(e); and(3) For arrears of rent of two months under Section 12(3)(b).The parties are hereinafter referred to as 'landlord' and 'tenant' for the sake of convenience and brevity.2. Respondent is a tenant of the demised premises which consis...
Tag this Judgment!Akhandanand Kelavani Utejak Mandal Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commiss ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-25-1997
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2322; (2000)IIILLJ1673Guj
S.D. Shah, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Akhandanand K.V. Mandal has challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Gujarat State, respondent No. 1. herein, dated May 29, 1995 at Annexure-A to the petitioner and has further applied for an appropriate writ directing the respondent to hold the enquiry under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioner has also applied for declaration that the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 are not applicable to the petitioner as they were running Primary School and Secondary School registered and recognised under different statues and, therefore, they were not governed by the provisions of the said Act.2. It appears that the petitioner which is a registered Trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 195...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Rajya Prathmik Shikshak Sangha Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)1GLR95
N.J. Pandya, J.1. These two petitions are filed in a sequence as in the year 1992 the State Government issued a G.R. through the Section Officer, Education Department that the Administrative Officer shall exercise his power of transfer under Section 24(1) of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947 in consultation with a Committee constituted thereunder. This G.R. is dated 30th July 1992, Annexure F, Page 51 of Special Civil Application No. 3328 of 1997. That G.R. is the subject-matter of challenge in the earlier petition No. 5556 of 1993. Thereafter, the State Government came out with circular dated 13-2-1997 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Education Department, whereby instructions are to the effect that the Administrative Officer, who is the only authority under the said Act to make transfer orders of primary teachers, shall do so after taking in confidence the members of the Committee as set out in the said circular.2. This is not the first exercise of this kind indulged into either ...
Tag this Judgment!Gajara Naran Bhura Vs. Kanbi Kunverbai Parbat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-19-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Guj185
R. Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Appellant in this case is the defendant and husband of respondent. Respondent plaintiff filed a suit for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100.00 per month and the maintenance charges Rs. 200.00, The suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division). Bhuj but in appeal the learned Assistant Judge of Kutch set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the plaintiffs suit to recover sum of Rs. 100.00/-per month for maintenance from the defendant appellant. Costs of the suit and appeal was also awarded. On being Second Appeal preferred before this Court, the Court while admitting the appeal formulated the following substantial question of law said to be involved for consideration in this case :'Where the marriage solemnised is in contravention of the provisions of the Child Marriage Restraint Act is void or valid.The suit was filed on 11-11-1974. The plaintiff's case was that her marriage with the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Nanabhai B. Parmar Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Workshop
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-19-1997
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ1590Guj
Keshote, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Challenge is made by the petitioner in this Special Civil Application to the order of the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, dated April 30, 1993, passed in Reference (LCA) No. 736 of 1985.3. The petitioner a Safai Karmachari of the respondent-Corporation was dismissed from services after holding a departmental inquiry. There were three charges against him. The first charge pertains to his wilful absent fro duty for 70 days. The second charge pertains to the misbehaviour with the superior officer and the third charge was of giving threat to the superiors. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute which has been referred to the Labour Court, which came to be dismissed under the order impugned in this Special Civil Application. Hence, this Special Civil Application before this Court.4. Before the Labour Court, the counsel who was appearing for the petitioner fairly conceded that the inquiry held against him was perfectly legal and proper...
Tag this Judgment!Mittal Trading Company Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)1GLR182
K.R. Vyas, J.1. Rule Mr. Mankad learned A.G.P. waives service on behalf of the respondents. At the request of the learned Advocates for the respective parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing to-day.2. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19-6-1996 passed by the State Government in appeal whereby the State Government has modified the order passed by the District Supply Officer, respondent No. 2 herein, who imposed penalty of confiscation of 25% of the goods seized valued at Rs. 15,156/-. However, by the impugned order, the State Government has in appeal preferred by the petitioner enhanced the quantity of commodities confiscated from 25% to 100%. The grievance made by the petitioner is that the State Government has no power to enhance the quantity of commodities confiscated, in absence of any cross-appeal or any notice issued to the petitioner by the State Government. Section 6(c) of the Essential Commodities...
Tag this Judgment!Jayamal Jayantilal Thakore Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)1GLR43; [1998]230ITR142(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. In these two writ petitions which were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment, the petitioners have sought a direction on the IT authorities to enquire into and investigate the sources of income in the light of huge expenses alleged to have been incurred by respondent No. 4 when several BJP MLAs were taken to Khajuraho in October, 1995, and during the marriage reception of the son of the respondent No. 4 Mr. Shankarsinh Lakshmansinh Waghela and in holding 'Mahasammelan' at Ahmedabad on 22nd August, 1996. A direction is also sought in Special CA No. 9390 of 1996 that the CBI should be directed to investigate into the incident and file a complaint against Mr. Shankarsinh Lakshmansinh Waghela, the Chief Minister of the State and Shri C. K. Raolji. 2. Notice was issued on 15th October, 1996, in Special CA No. 7417 of 1996 and on 7th November, 1996 in Special CA No. 9390 of 1996. 3. According to the petitioners of Special Civil Appln. No. 74...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Nandkishore Bhatt Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Guj137
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. The matter was called out for hearing in the first round, then in the second round and lastly in the third round, but none put appearance on behalf of the applicant. On 2-5-97 also none put appearance in this case and the matter stood over beyond vacation. Today also the position remains the same.2. Prayer has been made by the applicant in this Misc. Civil Application for recalling of the order dated February 26, 1991 passed in Special Civil Application No. 755 of 1989.3. In sum and substance the applicant made twofold prayers namely recalling or for review of the order. The ground given for recalling of the order is that the order has been made against a dead person. The Special Civil Application No. 755 of 1989 has been filed by Smt. Rukshmaniben H. Bhatt in the matter of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. This petition came to be decided by this Court under the order dated February 26, 1991. This application for recalling or review of the order, p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »