Gujarat Court November 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.
T.R. Associates Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-17-1999
Reported in: (2000)4GLR193
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the order dated 26.6.1995, Annexure : O to the writ petition, passed by the State Government in Revision and to confirm the communication dated 1.1/2.1998 contained in the order of the State Government dated 3.11.1991, Annexure : F, and to quash all proceedings taken in persuance of State Government orders dated 26.6.1995.2. Brief facts are as under :The land development scheme was framed by the Government for development and improvement of Khadi land situated in Bharuch near Civil Hospital. It was done under the Government resolution dated 24.6.1986 read with Collector's order dated 21.7.1986. Initially it was decided that lease of this land be given to G.N.F.C. for the purposes of reclaiming the land with industrial waste known as fly ash. It was also decided to form a committee for the purpose of disposing of the land by public auction. The land was reclaimed by G.N.F.C. Thereafter it was decided to sell the said land to...
Purshottambhai R. Kachhadia Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-05-1999
Reported in: (2000)2GLR1793
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. Both these petitions raise common questions and have been argued together. 2. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 5328 of 1987 challenges the order dated 28th September, 1987 at Annexure 'C' to the petition, passed by the Deputy Executive Engineer, Building and Communications, Sub-Division No. II, Junagadh District, Panchayat, terminating his services with effect from 31st October, 1987. A declaration is sought that the artificial breaks in the petitioner's service were illegal and unconstitutional. A direction is also sought to absorb the petitioner permanently in service. 3. The petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 5586 of 1987, have sought identical reliefs challenging the orders dated 28/29th September, 1987 of the Deputy Executive Engineer, terminating their services from 31st October, 1987. 4. The petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 5328 of 1987 was from to time appointed for a fixed period of 29 days with a clear stipulation th...
Bhailalbhai Mathurbhai Patel Vs. the State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-05-1999
Reported in: (2001)GLR332
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. The prayer of the petitioners in this petition is for a direction to declare that the impugned order dated 24.4.1995, Annexure : D, of the respondent No. 2 is bad and illegal and any transaction which has taken place between respondents No. 3 to 8 and the respondents No. 9 to 18 persuant to the said order is also illegal.2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are as under :The petitioners have challenged mainly the action of the respondent No. 2 contained in Order dated 24.4.1995 granting permission to the respondents No. 3 to 8 under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act (for short 'the Act). Under the said order the respondent No. 2 had granted permission to the respondents No. 3 to 8 to sell the land in question in favour of the respondents No. 9 to 18 for their residential purpose. This order is said to be illegal and is liable to be quashed for the reasons that this order was obtained by the respondents No. 3 to 8 by deliberately suppressing the fact that...
Municipal Corporation of City Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-05-1999
Reported in: (2000)2GLR269
1. The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad has in this group of petitions sought a declaration that the requirements denoted by the word 'successfully' and by the words 'and so long as it functions successfully' in Rule 6 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Rules, 1976 are inconsistent with the provisions of Section 7 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 and therefore inoperative and void. The petitioner Corporation has challenged the order dated 31st December, 1985 passed by the appellate authority and the revised assessment order dated 9th January, 1985 which was consequentially made.2. According to the petitioner, the polluting parameters as mentioned in the conditions imposed under the consent granted to the petitioner under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the maximum permissible limits of ranges allowed as per the consent condition were as under:(1) B.O.D. 20 mg./l.(2) Suspended...
Shah Sevantilal Dalsukhram and anr. Vs. Patel Mithabhai Tribhovandas a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-05-1999
Reported in: (2000)2GLR1682
C.K. Thakker, Acting C.J.1. This appeal is filed against an interim order passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 1967 of 1998 on July 2, 1998. The said order reads as under:Heard learned Advocate Mr. Sejpal on behalf of the petitioner, learned A.G.P. Ms. Talati on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and learned Advocate Mr. Merchant though notice is not issued to respondent No. 3, voluntarily appeared. Admit. Rule returnable on 15th July, 1998. Till then, the proceedings before the Assistant Charity Commissioner under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act are stayed. At this stage, learned Advocate Mr. Merchant requests for stay of this order which is rejected.An inquiry under Section 22 of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Mehsana. Since inquiry is under Section 22 read with provisions of Section 64 of the Act, it has to be conducted by the Deputy Charity Commissi...
Abdulsultan A. Manji and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-04-1999
Reported in: (2001)1GLR407
ORDER18. The petition is partly allowed to the following extent : A (i) The Government Resolution dated 15-10-1984 (Annexure 'B'), insofar as the same did not include the full-time teaching staff of non-aidedaffiliated non-government law colleges in the State for the purpose of pensionary benefits was discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioners under Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution. Respondent No. 1 is hereby directed to extend the benefits of the said resolution to full-time teaching staff of the affiliated non-government law colleges in the State who retired on or after 1-4-1982, including petitioner Nos. 2 to 7, notwithstanding the fact that such law colleges were not aided institutions prior to 1996-97. (ii) The petitioners and other members of the full-time teaching staff of such law colleges who retired on or after 1-4-1982 shall have the option of accepting the pension scheme as applicable to the government employees. While working out t...
Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. Director of Agricultural Mar ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-04-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Guj182
1. Admitted. Mr. P. K. Jani appears and waives service of notice of admission for respondent No. 2. Mr. Joshi, learned AGP waives service of notice of admission for respondent Nos. 1 and 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. This appeal is filed against an order passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 8246 of 1999 on October 22, 1999.3. Being aggrieved by the order of removal passed by the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance respondent No. 1 on October 5, 1999, the above petition was filed by respondent No. 2. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the present appellant before the learned single Judge that statutory remedy of revision is available to the petitioner under Section 48 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 and hence. High Court may not entertain Special Civil Application. The learned single Judge upheld the contention and disposed of the petition...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Deepak Nitrite Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-03-1999
Reported in: (2000)161CTR(Guj)60; [2000]243ITR825(Guj)
ORDERBY THE COURT : 1. In the reference, the following question has been raised : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is entitled to grant of depreciation on factory building and office building though the conveyance deed in respect of these properties was not registered in favour of the assessee till the end of the accounting year relevant to the previous year under consideration ?' 2. It is not disputed that the assessee-company entered into an agreement on 3rd July, 1984, with Mafatlal Industries and it had to pay the total consideration of Rs. 1.21 crores to Mafatlal Industries in view of the agreements for its unit named as Sayadri Dyestuff. The assessee paid Rs. 1 crore at the time of the execution of the aforesaid agreement. The balance amount of Rs. 21 lacs was to be paid on execution and registration of the conveyance deed in favour of the assessee-company which was not done till the end of the account...
State of Gujarat Vs. Talabhai Versibhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-03-1999
Reported in: (2000)2GLR1344
1. This acquittal appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 31/3/1993 rendered bythe Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 83 of 1992, whereinthe respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') Tulabhai Versibhai (Talabhai Versibhai) came to be charged with the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') for having been found in possession of 800 grams of green leaves of Bhang at around 12.15 p.m. (afternoon hours) of 31/5/1992 near Ranchhod Bapu Ashram, Kuvadava Road, City of Rajkot. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge exh. 1 and at the conclusion of trial he asserted that a false case was filed against him. Upon appreciation of evidence the Ld. Adddl. Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in asmuch as the evience of Panch witness Rasikbhai could not be said to be the evidence of an ind...
Saburbhai Hemabhai Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-03-1999
Reported in: (2000)1GLR835
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order dated 15.4.1995 annexure-B passed by the Deputy Collector, order annexure-C dated 31.7.1996 passed in revision by the Collector and order annexure-E dated 17.3.1997 passed by the Secretary (Appeal), Revenue Department, Gujarat State on the ground that these orders are illegal and arbitrary. In the writ petition five questions had been posed for consideration by this court.2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are as under:-3. Out of 5 acres 34 gunthas land of block No. 7 of village Tajpura, Dist. Kaira, the petitioner had purchased 1 acre 18 gunthas through a registered sale deed from its owners for Rs. 4200/- on 9-10/5/1974. The petitioner claims to be an Adivasi so also the owners of the land are said to be Adivasis. After purchasing the land the petitioner cultivated the same without any intervention and spent considerable amount in getting the land improved. After a period of 15 years of p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »