Gujarat Court November 1999 Judgments
State of Gujarat and ors. Vs. Laxmiben Jayantilal Sikligar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-30-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Guj180; (2000)2GLR1355
1. Appeal admitted. Mr. R.N. Shah waives service for the respondent-original plaintiff. On joint request of learned counsel, the appeal is taken up for final disposal today. This is an appeal at the instance of the State and its officers under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the respondent-original plaintiff.2. The relevant and pertinent facts in brief are to the effect that the respondent-original plaintiff was suffering from discomfort and pain in swallowing etc., that after consulting the family physician she was ultimately referred to the Civil Hospital at Godhra, that she underwent consultation with the Civil Surgeon Dr. Mahendra Damor (appellant-defendant No. 3) and after-due investigation, the said Dr. Damor performed surgery upon the thyroid gland of the plaintiff. It may be pointed out that the investigations prior to surgery, and indicators which lead to the choice of surgery indicate that the p...
Tag this Judgment!Shanku Concretes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-30-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1988; (2000)2GLR753
J.R. Vora, J.1. Rule. Learned APP Mr. K.P. Raval waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 and learned counsel Mr. D.D. Vyas waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the matter is finally heard and decided today.2. This application is filed by the petitioners under Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash a criminal complaint. The extent of criminal liability, which arises under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is the real controversy, which is the crux of the matter, requires to be adjudicated. The transactions which are other wise exclusively commercial and subject to civil jurisdiction, now by enacting Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, attaches criminal liability against the persons involved in such transaction. A careful judicial scrutiny and a deep probe is necessary to set at rest the battle arising from the commercial transaction.3. Looking to the...
Tag this Judgment!Managing Trustee Vs. Mahanbhai R. Bhangi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)1GLR708
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The question which is required to be decided in this Special Civil Application is whether a person who has not been given appointment order in an educational institution can challenge the decision of the institution making a complaint of not giving him appointment order by invoking Section 38(1) of Gujarat Secondary Education Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).2. The facts giving rise to this Special Civil Application are as under:That the petitioner no.1 is the Managing Trustee of Shri Jagatguru Shankaracharya Maharaj Kelvani Trust which is registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act. The petitioner no.2 is the Principal of Shri Jagatguru Shankaracharya Maharaj Utter Buniadi Vidyalay which is being run and managed by the petitioner no.1-Trust. The respondent no.1 herein had filed an application before the Secondary Education Tribunal, Ahmedabad by invoking sec...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Torrent Laboratories (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-29-1999
Reported in: (2000)160CTR(Guj)333; [2000]245ITR29(Guj)
ORDERB.C. Patel, J.1. The CIT Gujarat (Central), Ahmedabad has preferred this application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The applicant moved Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') inter alia requesting to make a reference under s. 256(1) of the Act for the opinion of the Court on the question which reads as under. 'Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 1,57,149 made under s. 37(3A) in respect of expenditure incurred on literature distributed to doctors ?' 2. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the expenditure for printing of calenders and literature ought not to have been allowed. He was of the view that the AO on reading the Explanation has rightly come to a conclusion that the amount spent for literature is not permissible. He called for the files from the AO. The assessee vide its reply, ...
Tag this Judgment!Nagha Mahbatsinh Zala Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-29-1999
Reported in: 2000(71)ECC821; (2000)2GLR1101
M.S. Parikh, J.1. This conviction appeal arises from the impugned judgment and order dated 18/8/1990 rendered by the Ld. 2nd Joint District Judge and Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case No. 148/1988. The accused Nagbha Mahobatsinh Zala has been convicted of the offence punishable u/S. 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Muddamal has been directed to be confiscated and sent to Excise and Prohibition Department.2. As per the prosecution case, Mr.B.N. Thumar, Police Sub Inspector, Dhandhuka Police Station had received information on or around 22/10/1988 that the accused, inhabitant of village Sarval was to carry with him opium at the Dhandhuka S.T. Bus Stand. He, therefore, called two panch witnesses and in their company as also in the company of the policemen, who we...
Tag this Judgment!Aartiben G. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-26-1999
Reported in: (2001)GLR326
M.R. Calla, J.1. Recruitment was held for making appointments on the post of Vidhya Sahayaks in October 1998 for District Banaskantha in pursuance to the advertisement, which had been issued on 25.6.98 and 2.7.98. This recruitment was intended for 1492 Vidhya Sahayaks. Select list was prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in S.S.C. as well as P.T.C. and other courses. After the recruitment was held and the Vidhya Sahayaks were to be appointed and when the question came up with regard to their postings, the Director of Primary Education held a Camp at Palanpur from 6.11.98 to 12.11.98. According to respondent No.3 at that time it was decided not to fill up any vacancy in the cadre of Primary School Teachers through the selected Vidhya Sahayaks so far as Talukas, namely, Palanpur, Vadgam and Danta in Banaskantha District are concerned, as there were shortage of teachers in other backward and interior Talukas like Deodhar, Vav, Tharad, Kankrej etc. as they are Boarder Talukas as wel...
Tag this Judgment!H.N. Mujadia and ors. Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-26-1999
Reported in: (2000)2GLR354
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The petitioners, by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the alleged discrimination stated to be made by the Oil & Natural Gas Commission, the first respondent herein, in the matter of promotion of its employees on the post of Production Operation to Chargeman. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondent No.1 is employing pick and choose method and has given promotion to the juniors to the petitioners and the petitioners have been left out in spite of the fact that they are eligible for promotion to the higher cadre. The petitioners in the special civil application prayed for following reliefs:(A) A writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued directing the respondents, their agents and servants to give the promotion to the petitioners from the post of Production Operator to the post of Chargeman (Production) with effect from 17.3.80.(B) Pendin...
Tag this Judgment!Anjani Synthetics Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-25-1999
Reported in: 2000(67)ECC512
J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. Rule service of which is waived by learned Central Government Standing Counsel Mr. Akshay Mehta for the respondents. 2. Upon joint request and in view of the special facts and circumstances, the petition is taken up today itself for final hearing. 3. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the only question which requires consideration is whether the impugned action and the order in refusing abatement in respect of hot air stenter was taken without affording an opportunity of hearing or not. It appears from the record, very clearly, that before passing the impugned order, no such opportunity was given. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from the vice of non-hearing. In the circumstances, the petition is required to be allowed on that ground alone. 4. Consequently, respondent No. 2, Who has recorded the impugned order, is directed to reconsider the representation and the request made by the petitioner after giving him an opportunity of heari...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotubhai Chhikabhai Patel Poa Roshanbhai C. Patel Vs. Special Land A ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-25-1999
Reported in: (2000)2GLR359
1. The petitioners in this case challenges the land acquisition proceedings in respect of lands situated in subdistrict Choryasi of district Surat which were commenced by issuing separate notification in respect of lands of the petitioners along with others situated at village Bhimpor, Gavier and Dumas under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) which were published in the Gujarat Government Gazette dated 1-4-1999. The notices were also published in the other modes prescribed under the Act, the dates of which are not relevant for the present purposes. In pursuance of the aforesaid notifications petitioners filed separate written objections dated 1-5-1999 which were signed under the hand of one Chandrakant Popat Advocate before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The public purpose for which the land was sought to be acquired was described as `for the construction and of extension of air strip at Gaviar', Surat. Thereafter declarations under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Kirpashanker Joshi Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-24-1999
Reported in: (2001)1GLR174
P.B. Majmudar, J. 1. [His Lordships after stating the facts of the case and further observed :]XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX9. So far as the second point is concerned, it has been stated by the petitioner in para 4 of the petition that during the past 10 years of service on the aforesaid post, the period from June 1976 till July 1987, the petitioner's service record is rated as 'good' by two different officers for the period from 1-4-1975 to 17-2-1976 and 1-4-1983 to 31-3-1984. The petitioner was not communicated any adverse remark for the period from 1-4-1982 to 31-3-1983, and therefore, it was presumed that it must be 'good' because if it was adverse, it would have been communicated to the petitioner. Thereafter, for the period between 31-3-1982 to 27-12-1982 and 1-4-1984 to 31-3-1984 the remark was 'average' and for the period from 1-4-1985 to 31-3-1986, the remark was 'fair'. Therefore, between last 10 years, the petitioner's service record was 'good' for 3 years, average for 2 years and 'fair...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »