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.
Lalshanker A. Suthar Vs. Guj Agricultural University
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)2GLR398
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The petitioner, an Ex-employee of the State of Gujarat and now the employee of the Gujarat Agricultural University, Banaskantha, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is praying for direction to the respondents No. 1 and 2 to fix his pay in the revised pay scale of Rs. 425-700 and to give him all the consequential benefits flowing therefrom.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Technician on 1-9-1967 in the Agriculture and Cooperative Department to work under the Directorate of Animal Husbandry. At the relevant time, the Gujarat College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry was run by the Government of Gujarat. The petitioner was appointed in the scale of Rs. 185-15-230-15-270. Along with the petitioner, four other persons were also similarly appointed as Laboratory Technicians. The four other persons were Science graduates. However, the petitioner was a Inter-science with one necessary Diploma c...
M.M. Bhavsar - Peon Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)1GLR822
1. Rule. Service of rule is waived by learned counsel for the respondents. As pleadings are complete, the petition is heard finally at the request of parties.2. The petitioner was appointed as Packer in 1978 in the Printing Press who was working under the Fisheries Department. Thereafter, he was appointed as a Distributor as a direct recruit which under the recruitment rules of the fisheries department was a Class IV post. By order dated 26th July 1990, the Government directed to close the printing press and absorb its employees in fisheries department in the same pay scale. Pursuant to this order, the petitioner became an employee of the fisheries department with effect from 26/7/90. Order of appointment by absorption was issued on 25/7/91 as peon on ad hoc basic in Class IV service in the pay scale of Rs.750/- - Rs.940/-, however his pay as on 25/2/91 as distributor at Rs.1130/- was protected, when he joined as peon. By order dated 27/7/95, in pursuance of Government Resolutions of 5...
Kosamba Gram Panchayat Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: (2000)2GLR26
R.K.Abichandani,J.1. The petitioner Gram Panchayat has, in this petition, challenged the Resolution of the State of Gujarat, dated 9.9.1996 at Annexure 'N' to the petition, and the consequential order made by the respondent No.4 Collector on 31.12.1996 at Annexure 'P' to the petition, by which the respondent No.7, which is a religious institution, was granted land admeasuring 9,332 sq.meters from survey No.110 part of village Kosamba in Valsad District, by regularising the encroachment on the land in question. The challenge against these orders is made on the ground that they are issued in violation of the provisions of Sections 37, 38, 61 and 62 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and Rule 42 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972, and that they also violate the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests on 19th February, 1991, as amended on 9.7.1997 as well as the Coastal Zone Management Plan of Gujarat, framed under Section 3(2)(v) of the Env...
M.V. Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: (2000)1GLR909
R. Balia, J.1. While petitioner was serving as a Divisional Accountant a Class III post in the Medium Irrigation Project Division of Ankleshwar, a case under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with section 161 IPC was instituted against him before the learned Special Judge, Bharuch. During the pendency of the trial, he was suspended on 23rd January 1985. In the said trial, in the first instance, he was convicted by the Judge, Special Court and thereafter, the said conviction was upheld by High Court in Criminal Appeal No.1189/86 by judgement dated 16/17-4-1993. His appeal before the Supreme Court succeeded on 3/9/19997 and he was acquitted and conviction was set aside on the ground that no valid sanction for prosecuting has been granted by the Government. However, the Court looking to the age of litigation and issue involved did not permit trial denovo in respect of the charges. During this period, the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and retired from services on ...
Bharatkumar Chimanlal Chauhan Vs. Nuclear Power Corporation Ltd. and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-06-1999
Reported in: (2000)3GLR1891
ORDER1. Rule. Service of rule is waived by Mr. J. D. Ajmera for respondent No. 1. 2. Draft amendment allowed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner challenges non-consideration of his case for promotion firstly in 1994 from Grade 'C' to Grade 'D', to which grade he was promoted later on in May 1995 and thereafter, for next promotion to the Grade 'E' from Grade 'D' after completion of 3 years in Grade 'D' notwithstanding persons junior to him were called and considered for the promotion. 3. In reply, respondents have urged that the respondent-organization which was originally a constituent unit of Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, was looking after design, construction, erection, commissioning, operation and maintenance of nuclear power plants in India for the purpose of generation of electricity by using atomic fuel and was later on converted into a company wholly owned by Government of India. The petitioner is a Member of its scientific and technical ca...
Jyotiben R. Pathak and ors. Vs. Rafigsa Chammansa Fakir and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-06-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Guj129; (2000)3GLR169
Thakkar, Actg. C.J.1. LPA No. 1180 of 1999 is admitted. Mr. Tushar Mehta appears and waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 22. Mr. Joshi appears and waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondents Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 28. So far as respondent No. 26 is concerned, learned advocate for the appellants states that it is joined because originally, it was one of the respondents in the petition and though it was ordered to be deleted, in the certified copy, his name continues, Respondent No. 27 was respondent in the SCA, but now, as he is one of the appellants i.e. appellant No. 7, no formal notice is, therefore, required to be issued to him. Thus, service to all the respondents is complete.2. LPA No. 1215 of 1999 is also admitted. Mr. Tushar Mehta appears and waives service of notice of admission on behalf of original petitioners and Mr. Nanavati waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondents.3. Both these appeals arise out of a...
Vasantlal Tulsidas Agrawal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-1999
Reported in: [2002]254ITR255(Guj)
B.C. Patel, J. 1. Both these petitions are raising a common question and admitted facts being common are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The facts narrated in Special C. A. No. 4825 of 1998, are exactly similar in the other petition, viz., Special C. A. No. 4827 of 1998. They are as under :The Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (VDIS for short), was made operative and it was to remain in force till December 31, 1997. For seeking the benefit under the Scheme, one was required to tender a form as prescribed under Sub-section (1) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1997, a copy of which is produced at exhibit A-1. In Clause 5 of the said form, the assessee was required to disclose the amount of income declared in figures and words. He was also required to disclose the assessment year to which the income relates. In Clause 6, the total amount of voluntarily declared income was required to be mentioned ; while in Clause 7, the tax payable thereon was required to be mentioned c...
Ravishankar Bhagvatiprasad Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-1999
Reported in: (2000)1GLR137
M.S. Parikh, J.1. 'Drug abuse is a social malady. While drug addiction eats into the vitals of the society, drug trafficking not only eats into the vitals of the economy of a country, but illicit money generated by drug trafficking is often used for illicit activities including encouragement of terrorism. There is no doubt that drug trafficking, trading and its use, which is a global phenomena and has acquired the dimensions of an epidemic, affects the economic policies of the State, corrupts the system and is detrimental to the future of a country. It has the effect of producing a sick society and harmful culture....''The societal intent in safety will suffer if persons who commit crimes are let off because the evidence against them is to be treated as if it does not exist. The answer, therefore, is that the investigating agency must follow the procedure as envisaged by the statute scrupulously and the failure to do so must be viewed by the higher authorities seriously inviting action...
Bhupat @ Ishwarbhai Kahar Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-1999
Reported in: (2000)2GLR1361
C.K. Thakker, Acting C.J.1. This appeal is filed against the dismissal of Special Civil Application No. 1215 of 1999 by the learned single Judge on August 16, 1999. The appellant was the original petitioner. He was detained under the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The detaining authority-Commissioner of Police, Baroda City was satisfied that with preventing the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it was necessary to detain the detenu, and hence, by an order dated December 17, 1998 the appellant was ordered to be detained. On the same day, grounds of detention were supplied, inter alia, alleging therein that the detenu was a 'bootlegger' within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act and his activities were found to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Three offences punishable under Bombay Prohibition Act were also registered against the detenu. In each of those cases, the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. PrayashvIn B. Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-04-1999
Reported in: [1999]240ITR931(Guj)
ORDERBY THE COURT :1. The CIT, Gujarat, (Central) preferred an application before Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), inter alia, requesting the Tribunal to make a reference to this Court on the following question of law : 'Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in setting aside the order passed by the CIT under s. 263 of the Act wherein he had directed the AO to disallow the claim of business loss of Rs. 1,31,893 since no business activity was carried out by the assessee in the present year 2. The Tribunal rejected the application filed at the instance of the CIT. Hence, the present application. 3. Mr. Naik learned advocate submitted that the order is perverse and the Tribunal ought to have given details in its order. It appears that the AO allowed the claim made by the assessee. However, the CIT, Gujarat, Central, issued notice to the respondent under s. 263 of the said Act on or about 7th Jan., 1991, to show cause as to why t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »