Gujarat Court October 1999 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.
Shambhusinh P. Chavda Vs. Chairman
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-25-1999
Reported in: (2000)3GLR211
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The petitioner, a higher secondary teacher with respondent No.1 and 2 by this writ petition, challenges the order dated 29th August 1982 of the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal at Ahmedabad in Application No.183 of 1983.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for life imprisonment by the Sessions Court, Godhara, under its judgment dated 30th December 1982 passed in Sessions Case No.109 of 1982. After the conviction of the petitioner for offence of murder, the respondents under the order dated 25th March 1983, dismissed him from services. This dismissal has been ordered of the petitioner from services by respondents No.1 and 2 after taking approval from the respondent No.3 vide its order dated 22nd February 1983. Dismissal was ordered with effect from 30th December 1982. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed application No.183 of 1983 before th...
B.N. Bhardwaj Vs. B.K. Maruthi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-25-1999
Reported in: (2000)1GLR896
R.Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner challenges by way of this petition show cause notice dated 15.7.1998 issued by respondent No.1 following his conviction by judicial court under section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on 30.12.1996. The main plank of the petitioner in his petition as is apparent from the pleadings in the petition as well as the contention of the petitioner noticed at the time of issuing notice in order dated 29.7.1998 is that for the same charges for which petitioner has been convicted, a departmental enquiry was held and major penalty has already been inflicted of reduction in time scale of pay by order dated 18.9.1991. With this premise it was contended that once the petitioner was retired, order of dismissal subsequent thereto on the basis of order of conviction on the very same charges cannot be passed inasmuch as no order of dismissal can be made with retrospective effect and that too for the same charges for which t...
State of Gujarat Vs. Kamlesh Barot (Since Deceased)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-22-1999
Reported in: (2000)2GLR820
C.K. Buch, J.1. Heard learned PP Mr. Desai for the petitioner State and Mr. TS Nanavati for Respondent no. 2. Respondent nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 appeared in person and they are heard in person. Respondent nos. 9 & 10 have opted to remain absent though served.2. This Cri. Rev. Application is filed by the complainant State of Gujarat against the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharuch dated 22.9.1999 below application exh. 262 in Sessions Case No. 99/98 pending before him, rejecting the application exh. 262 filed by the learned APP, Bharuch preferred under sec. 311 of the Cr.P.Code. The State had prayed that three witnesses namely Bhupendra Prabhulal Shah (father of the victim boy Manish), victim boy Manish and witness Mahendra Prabhulal Shah be recalled for a limited purpose so as to identify the voice recorded in audio tape cassettes by police. Application exh. 262 filed by the APP before the learned Sessions Judge is self-explanatory. It is the say of the State that th...
Malathikutty K., Since Deceased Through Her Heirs and Legal R. Vs. Lal ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-20-1999
Reported in: (2000)4GLR465
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The petitioner since deceased, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing and setting aside of the order of the respondent-institution at Annexure-B dated 5/12/1986 under which her services were brought to an end.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent-institution as a Steno-Typist after due selection under the order dated 25/6/86, at Annexure-A on the record of this Special Civil Application. She was given appointment on probation for one year from the date of her joining with a condition that confirmation shall depend upon satisfactory performance of duties allotted to her.3. The dispute raised is whether it is an order of simpliciter discharge of petitioner-probationer from the services or an order, for her act of joining the employees' union by way of penalty.4. This writ petition was admitted and interim relief has been granted in favour of the petitioner since deceased and she c...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N.R. Papers and Boards Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-1999
Reported in: [2001]248ITR526(Guj)
B.C. Patel, J. 1. All these applications arise out of a common judgment passed by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench A, Ahmedabad, hence, these applications are disposed by this common judgment. 2. The CIT, Surat, moved the Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act') for making a reference. The following 8 questions were suggested to be referred to this Court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal having held that such addition is not justified in block assessments was justified in adjudicating the issue on its merit (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified to hold that services were rendered by the liaison agents with reference to the additional evidence of counter-signed order intents de hors the relevant pieces of evidence taken note of by the AO (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified by holding that an expenditure already claimed u...
B.M. Mehta Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-1999
Reported in: (2000)4GLR88
ORDER1. This petition has been filed in the following circumstances. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Jr. Clerk in the office of Director of Social Welfare, Gujarat State on 1-9-79. He was promoted as Sr. Clerk on 15-1-85 and again promoted as Head Clerk on 2-4-90. The petitioner passed the promotion qualifying examination for the post of Social Welfare Officer Class II on 21-5-94. This promotion qualifying examination for post of Social Welfare Officer is necessarily required to be passed under the District Social Welfare Officer and Nomadic Tribes Welfare Officer (Conditions of Service relating to Departmental Examination) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1970). Thus, the petitioner became eligible to be promoted to the post of Social Welfare Officer Class II having already passed the promotion qualifying examination. However, before he could be promoted on that basis, he was directly recruited in 1996 vide order dated 16-1-1996 as Social Welfare Officer Class I...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. N.R. Papers and Boards Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-1999
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(Guj)488; [2000]108TAXMAN536(Guj)
Patel, J.All these applications arise out of a common judgment passed by the Tribunal, Ahmedbad Bench A, Ahmedabad, hence, these applications are disposed by this common judgment.2. The Commissioner, Surat, moved the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for making a reference. The following 8 questions were suggested to be referred to this Court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal having held that such addition is not justified in block assessments was justified in adjudicating the issue on its merit ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified to hold that services were rendered by the liaison agents with reference to the additional evidence of counter-signed order intents de hors the relevant pieces of evidence taken note of by the assessing officer ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified ...
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Shaileshkumar M. Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-15-1999
Reported in: (2000)1GLR644
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation by this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution has sought to challenge the award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 798 of 1990 dated 28th September, 1990 under which the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent-workman on his original post with full back wages. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent-workman served the petitioner in the year 1976 for a period of 172 days and in the year 1977 for 9 days on daily wages. Thereafter, he stopped coming to duty as daily-wager on his own. It appears that on instigation of somebody he approached the Labour Department after a long period of 7 years after he left the services of the Corporation. He filed a complaint before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ahmedabad in 1984 for his reinstatement and back wages. That complaint of the respondent-workman was replied by the petitioner on 12th June, 1984. The Assistant Labo...
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Valsad Vs. Bhanabhai B. Pate ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-15-1999
Reported in: (2000)2GLR1358
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Mr. Raval, the learned Advocate is present for the petitioner-Corporation. Mr. J. R. Nanavati, the learned Advocate is appearing for the respondent-workman. The facts of the present petition are that the respondent was working in the workshop in the Valsad Division as Head Mechanic. The respondent was initially working in the then Great Eastern Transport Co. as a Body Fitter and thereafter, as the said company came to be closed on 1.4.1953, he was appointed in the services of the petitioner-Corporation as Art Body Fitter on 1.8.1973. On 1.8.1973, he was promoted to the post of Head Mechanic and the respondent reached the age of 58 years in accordance with the rules of the Corporation on 30.8.1978, the respondent retired from the service of the Corporation. The respondent feeling aggrieved by the said order of retirement from the petitioner-Corporation and on his belief that he has a right to continue in the service of the petitioner-Corporation till upto 30.4.1980 til...
Victor F. Parmar Vs. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-15-1999
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR125]; (2000)1GLR877; (2000)IIILLJ494Guj
H. K. Rathod, J. 1. It is well established that the Labour Court should not mechanically use the words 'punishment being disproportionate to the charges'. The Labour Court is required to give reasons as to why the punishment is grossly disproportionate. The discretionary power cannot be equated with the power of veto. Once the Labour Court evaluates the gravity of misconduct and considers the past record of service, it is true that the order of the Labour Court modifying the order of punishment or moulding the relief under Section 11-A of the I. D. Act should not be interfered with by this Court. Such is not the case at hand. 2. It is well established that Section 11-A of the I. D. Act empowers the adjudicator under the said Act to substitute or mould the punishment meted on the employee by the employer in certain cases and these are the discretionary powers to be invoked in the facts and circumstances of each case. When such powers are being invoked, the adjudicator is required to exa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »