Gujarat Court December 1999 Judgments
M.S. Bhut Education Trust and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-30-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Guj160
ORDERM.S. Shah, J. 1. Under the provisions of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972 an institution is required to obtain recognition from the Gujarat Secondary Education Board. Under the Grant-in-Aid policy, the secondary school can apply for grant from the State Government and it is the State Government which takes the decision as to which institution is to be given grant and subject to which conditions. Considering the limited resources available with the State in the year 1998, the State Government had instructed the Gujarat Secondary Education Board to invite applications for recognition with grant from institutions interested in imparting education to girls in Secondary Classes and to submit a list of 15 institutions which had applied for such recognition with grant. Accordingly, 428 institutions applied for recognition with grant. The Board scrutinised the applications and prepared the list of 15 institutions for recognition with grant. The Board forwarded the list to the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Minesh Rajnikant Dalal Vs. Avani Minesh Dalal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)2GLR733
S.K. Keshote, J.1. All these three arise from Hindu Marriage Petition No.280 of 1995 in the court of 5th Extra Assistant Judge, Vadodara, and the same are being taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Civil Revision Application No.1469 of 1996 is directed by the husband against the order of the court below, ex.8 dated 21st August 1996, under which the court has directed the petitioner-husband to pay the respondent-wife, interim alimony at the rate of Rs.2,000/= p.m. from the date of filing of the petition, i.e. 28.12.95 till the final disposal of the main petition. The court below further ordered the petitioner-husband to pay Rs.5,000/= to the respondent-wife towards expenses for contesting the petition.3. Civil Revision Application No.1631 of 1996 is filed by wife against this very order for enhancement of the amount of interim alimony as well as the amount of litigation expenses.4. In Misc. Civil Application No.118 of 1999, the wife is praying ...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Vyas Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-30-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2508
A.L. Dave, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking indulgence of the Court at a pre-detention stage apprehending detention of his brother Prakash Vyas under the provisions of Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 ('PBM Act' for short).2. The facts, in nutshell, leading to this petition are that, there is one Paras Service Station, being run at Makarpura, Vadodara, which is a partnership firm, of which there are three partners, (1) Mukesh Muljibhai Savla, (2) Anil Shantilal Chheda and (3) Prakash Vyas. There is one paid Manager, Mr. Rajesh T. Desai. The firm runs a petrol pump and deals in petrol, diesel, etc. since 1976. The petitioner is the brother of Prakash Vyas and seeks indulgence of this Court against an order of detention passed against Prakash Vyas under the provisions of PBM Act.2.1 It may be noted that the order is not executed. The events leading to the alleged passing of the order are that authorities of ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalpesh Gunwantlal Soni Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-30-1999
Reported in: (2001)GLR381
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Rule. Mr. Mukesh Patel waives service of Rule on behalf of respondents. The petitioner, Convict No.75048, undergoing sentence at Central Prison, Vadodara, by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is praying for declaration that he is entitled to furlough leave and for direction to the respondents to grant him earned furlough which became due in the year 1997 and 1999 on any suitable condition which this Court may deem fit, just and proper. Prayer has also been made for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 25th June 1999 passed by Dy. I.G. Prison, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, under which his prayer for releasing him on furlough leave has been declined.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was prosecuted by Kapadwanj Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Court, Nadiad, under its judgment and order dated 4.5.1992, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him ...
Tag this Judgment!Hirabhai Bhanabhai Ahir Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)3GLR154
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 5th July, 1989, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, in the Sessions Case No. 221 of 1988. The learned additional Sessions Judge has convicted the present appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'Accused')for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal code and has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the first offence and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the other offence and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. He however acquitted the Accused Nos. 2-3 of the said offences, read with section 114 of the IPC, giving them benefit of doubt.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 28th day of July,1988, at around 1O.OO hours in the morning, one Ramdas, the brother of the complainant Bhikhubhai Ravjibhai had gone to his field in the outskirt of village Sar...
Tag this Judgment!H.K. Das Vs. Babulal Gangaram Joshi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-30-1999
Reported in: (2001)2GLR175; (2001)IILLJ460Guj
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. In this group of petitions, common questions have arisen out of a common award and, therefore, upon request, they are being disposed of, simultaneously.2. A few skeleton projection of facts leading to the rise of this group of petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, may be highlighted, at the outset.3. The petitioner is a Trust of temple of Arasuri Ambaji Mata, at Ambaji, Taluka Danta, District Banaskantha, which is registered as a Public Charitable Trust under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, having registration No.A/497. The Public Trust is administered and managed by by virtue of a scheme framed by the then Government of Bombay, by its resolution dated March 17, 1960. As per the said scheme, a copy, whereof, is produced as at, Annexure A, the Collector of Banaskantha District is the Chairman of the Managing Committee having other Ex-officio and nominated members. Upon bifurcation of the of the Former State of Bombay, the M...
Tag this Judgment!H.K. Das, Collector and anr. Vs. Babulal Gangaram Joshi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-30-1999
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1103
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. In this group of petitions, common questions have arisen out of a common award, and therefore, upon request, they are being disposed of simultaneously.2. A few skeleton projection of facts leading to the rise of this group of petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, may be highlighted, at the outset.3. The petitioner is a Trust of temple of Arasuri Ambaji Mata, at Ambaji, Taluka Danta, District Banaskantha, which is registered as a Public Charitable Trust under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, having registration No. A/497. The Public Trust is administered and managed by virtue of a scheme framed by the then Government of Bombay, by its resolution dated March 17, 1960. As per the said scheme, a copy, whereof, is produced as at Annexure A, the Collector of Banaskantha District is the Chairman of the Managing Committee having other Ex-officio and nominated members. Upon bifurcation of the of the Former State of Bombay, the Manag...
Tag this Judgment!Gohel Sunil Devshi Vs. State Election Commission
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)2GLR1527
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. All these appeals involve common questions and have been argued together. They are directed against the decision of the learned Single Judge rendered on 23.12.1999 in Special Civil Application No.10037 of 1999 and Special Civil Application No.10041 of 1999 dismissing the petitions and vacating the mandatory interim relief by restoring status quo ante. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 8.12.1999 of the Election Commission by which the candidates who had filled in their nominations purporting to be candidates set up by a recognized political party were required to furnish the requisite letter evidencing that fact by 3.00 p.m. on the date of filing of the nomination papers. As per the programme which was announced by the Election Commission on 6.12.1999, the last date for submitting nomination papers was 13.12.1999. The date of scrutiny was 15.12.1999 and the date for withdrawing the nomination was 17.12.1999. The last date of voting was 2.1.2000 which...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanshyam Hiralal AmIn Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)4GLR215
1. On December 23, 1999, we issued notice and granted status quo . The said order read as under :'Notice returnable on 30th December 1999. Status quo as on today to be maintained till then. D.S. permitted.'2. Petitioners have filed the above petition for the reliefs in terms of para 67 which reads as under:'67. The petitioners , therfore, pray that:- (A) This Honourable court will be pleased to admit this petition.(B) That this Honourable court will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and any other appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus by declaring section 80(2) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 as unconstitutional, ultra vires as being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(c) and 19(1)(g) of the Cosntitution of India;(C) That this Honourable court will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus be issued, declaring the action of the respondent No.1 herein in seeking to invoke...
Tag this Judgment!Kanbi Arjan Kana Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)2GLR745
A.R. Dave, J.Rule. 1. Learned AGP Shri Umesh Trivedi waives service of rule for respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and learned advocate Shri M.C.Barot waives service of rule for respondent No. 3. At the request of the learned advocates, the petition is finally heard today.2. The petitioners have been aggrieved by an order dated 11.8.99 passed by the State of Gujarat, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure F to the petition.3. The facts giving rise to the present petition in a nutshell are as under:- 4. The petitioners were owners of agricultural lands but their lands had been acquired by the Government of Gujarat when Sipu Irrigation Project was being implemented for the purpose of construction of Sipu dam. As a part of the government policy, in addition to payment of compensation, the petitioners were also granted agricultural lands so that they can continue their agricultural activities on the lands granted to them.5. For the purpose of grant of land to the petitioners and other similarly s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »