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.
Patel Filters Ltd. Vs. Barkatbhai V. Narsindani and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-01-1999
Reported in: (2000)1GLR562
R.M. Doshit, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. The petitioner before this Court is an Industry manufacturing Engineering goods, and challenges the judgment and order dated 17th April, 1999, passed by the learned Special Labour Judge, Ahmedabad, on Applications Exhs. 40 and 7, made on Complaint Nos. 2 and 23 of 1997 in Reference (LCIDAT) No. 74 of 1997. The respondents are the concerned workmen. 3. It appears that pending the Reference No. LCIDAT No. 74 of 1997 made in respect of the demands of the workmen for the alleged acts of misconduct committed by the respondents herein (hereinafter referred to as the 'workmen'), they were suspended from service under the orders dated 8th June, 1996 and 10th April, 1996 respectively. After holding the due inquiry, under the orders dated 18th February, 1997, the workmen were dismissed from service. Feeling aggrieved, the workmen made above referred Complaint Nos. 2 and 23 of 1997 under Section 33A of the Industrial Dis...
U.B. AmIn Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-01-1999
Reported in: [2000(85)FLR898]; (2000)1GLR386
ORDER1. Everyday, I find that in substantial number of cases, which are placed on the Board, reply to the special civil applications have not been filed on behalf of the State of Gujarat and its officers. Not only this, in substantial number of cases, Government advocates are not appearing as they are not having the papers of the matters. This is exactly a case of that category. 2. However, it is an old Matter and hearing of the same cannot be deferred only on the ground or the reason that the State of Gujarat and its officers have not chosen to file reply to the special civil application as well as nobody is present on their behalf in this Court even to make oral submissions. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the special civil application. 4. The petitioner was appointed as Malaria Surveillance Inspector on 28-1960 in the office of the respondent No. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has completed 20 years of quashing services of 30th August, 1980. ...
Valjibhai Kalidas Makwana Vs. D.S.P. Kheda ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-01-1999
Reported in: (2000)2GLR1021
S.K. Keshote, J. 1. The petitioner, an Ex-trainee constable of the Police Department of the Kheda District, by this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is praying for issuing a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the respondents to take him back in service and pay him all back wages and arrears of salary from the date of his wrongful dismissal. Second prayer has been made for asking from the respondents as to why after so many reminders even today the petitioner's appeals at Annexures H and I, have not been disposed of. Third prayer has been made for declaration that the dismissal of the petitioner from service is illegal and unconstitutional The petition was amended and further prayers have been made that is, for interim relief to stay the operation of the order of dismissal of a petitioner from services Annexure A and second to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to join his duties with immediate effect, pending admission and final disp...
Himatbhai Pethabhai Vankar Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-01-1999
Reported in: (2000)2GLR829
J. Calla, J.1. This Appeal as was sent to this Court through Jail is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Ahmedabad on 26th April 1990, in Sessions Case No. 44 of 1989, whereby the present appellant, namely, Himatbhai Pethabhai Vankar was convicted for the offences punishable under sec. 20(b)(ii) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (which will be hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act'), read with sec. 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 ('Prohibition Act' for brevity) whereby the appellant herein was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years in addition to 10 years. No separate sentence has been awarded for the offence under sec. 66(b) of the Prohibition Act and set off was directed to be given for the period of sentence undergone during the trial. Th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. PrayashvIn B. Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-01-1999
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Guj)418
Order By the Court:The CIT, Gujarat, (Central) preferred an application before Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income Tax 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 section 263 of the Act wherein he had directed the assessing officer 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 assessing officer allowed the claim made by the assessee. However, the CIT, Gujarat, Central, issuednotice to the respondent under section 263 of the said Act on or ...
Ashokbhai Jivraj @ Jivabhai Solanki Vs. Police Commissioner
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-01-1999
Reported in: (2000)1GLR816
C.K. Thakkar, Actg. C.J.1. This appeal is filed against dismissal of SCA No. 597 of 1999 by the learned Single Judge on August 3, 1999. 2. Appellant was the original petitioner. He was detained by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City, Surat under the provisions of the Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the order of detention, it was stated that the detaining authority was satisfied that with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order, it was necessary to detain him and accordingly, the order was passed. In the grounds of detention of even date, it was stated that four cases have been registered against the detenu in the year 1998. 3. On March 29, 1998, at about 18.00 hours, the detenu had gone to the residence of Smt. Jaina Bibi, wife of Anwarhusein Shakurbhai Shaikh at Surat and teased her daughter Yashminbanu, aged about 16 years. He also misbehaved with her for which a co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›