Gujarat Court December 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.
Dr. Mukundrai Venishankar Trivedi Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)3GLR2259
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The original petitioner, Dr.Mukundrai Venishankar Trivedi has expired on 28th March 1991. His heirs, the widow and two daughters filed Civil Application No.1821 of 1992 in this case and prayed therein for bringing them on the record of this special civil application as petitioners No.1/A, 1/B and 1/C. This Civil Application came to be allowed by this Court on 17th September, 1992 and the heirs and legal representatives were ordered to be brought on record of this special civil application. However, necessary correction has not been made in the cause title of the special civil application. When the matter was heard and order was kept reserve, during the course of dictation of judgment this court has noticed that not only the original petitioner has expired but one of his legal heirs, the widow has also expired, but no steps have been taken by petitioner to bring the heirs and legal representatives on record. It is also noticed that necessary correction has not been ma...
Uttar Bhartiya Nagar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and anr. Vs. the ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-30-1999
Reported in: (2001)GLR303
1. The Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in the case of Kamta Prasad v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, reported in AIR 1967 MP PAGE 211, observed:9. The Cooperative movement is both a theory of life and a system of business. It is a form of voluntary association where individuals unite for mutual aid in the production and distribution of wealth upon principles of equity, reason and common good. It stands for distributive justice and asserts the principle of equality and equity ensuring to all those engaged in the production of wealth a share proportionately commensurate with the degree of their contribution. It provides as a substitute for material assets, honesty and a sense of moral obligation and keeps in view the moral rather than the material sanction. The movement is thus a great Cooperative movement. Such being the nature of the Cooperative movement, there is no place in any Cooperative Society for any member who is not honest and who, as the Allahabad High Cou...
Murti Enterprises Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)3GLR850
ORDER19. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. Condition No. 1 of tender form at Annexure 'A' confining the eligibility to only the Gujarat based manufacturers is held to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondents are restrained from processing or finalizing the tenders received by the respondent-Board pursuant to the said tender notice at Annexure 'A'. The respondent-Board is directed to process the tenders opened on 2.11.1999 which were invited pursuant to the interim order dated 30.8.1999 passed by this Court in the present petition and to proceed further for awarding contracts on the basis that the manufacturers outside the State of Gujarat as well as the manufacturers within the State of Gujarat are eligible to get the contract for the supply of hand pump sets as per the new purchase policy contained in the body of the Government Resolution dated 23.9.1997 (except clause 6) as amended from time to time till 2.11.1999.It will ...
Ajmera and Co. Vs. Development Commissioner, Gujarat State and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)3GLR2217
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The petitioner a registered partnership firm, by this petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 21-6-1986 of the respondent No. 2 purported to have been passed under Section 294(4) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1961 and the order of respondent No. 1 dated 8-12-1986 purported to have been passed under Section 294(5) of the aforesaid Act. Further, prayer has been made for injuncting respondent No. 2 from executing/implementing the order passed by him dated 21-6-1986 and the respondent No. 1 from executing and implementing its order dated 8-12-1986.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent No. 3 decided to give the work of the collection of Octroi on Ijara. The petitioner gave offer to the respondent No. 3 for collection of octroi for the period commencing from 15-1-1986 to 14-4-1986 on the payment of Rs. 8.55 lacs. This offer of the petitioner was came to be accepted by the respondent No...
H.M. Solanki Vs. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)3GLR2712
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This Court what is said everyday is facing shortage of staff. The work of the Court is increasing which is bound to increase. However, an endeavour has to be made by all concerned, the Bench, Bar and the litigants to see that as far as possible whatever the avoidable additional burden may not be fallen on the Court and Registry. If additional burden which otherwise is avoidable falls on the shoulder of the Registry, it results in manifold ways and may adversely effect the other regular work.2. This Court has framed the Rules known as Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993. The Rules are framed to provide procedure to be followed which may smooth the work of Registry and as a result thereof the work of the Court. There is no provision in these rules, where any liberty or the right has been conferred upon the litigants to produce their matter and papers before this Court in shabby or deficient form. I do not find under the Rules where a legal obligation is there on the Registr...
Shivabhai Khodabhai Patel Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-28-1999
Reported in: [2000]244ITR457(Guj)
ORDERB.C. Patel, J. 1. By filing this petition the petitioner has prayed this Court to quash and set aside the notice, dt. 29th July, 1998, issued under s. 127(1) of the IT Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and order, dt. 9th December, 1998, passed under s. 127(2) of the Act being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and further prayed that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner subsequent to the order of transfer be quashed and set aside being without jurisdiction. 2. Initially the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is engaged in the business of diamond cutting the polishing and when the premises was searched only a mere sum of Rs. 310 was found by the raiding party. The learned counsel contended that the poor assessee was subjected to process of transfer of the case. 3. It appears that the petitioner is a resident of Jasdan town. Search took place at the residence and business premi...
SadaruddIn Maganbhai Narsidani Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-27-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3433
ORDERA.L. Dave, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court with this petition under article 226 of the Constitution claiming protection under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution apprehending passing of orders of detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 ('PASA Act' for short).2. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-'29. On the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, the petitioner prays to Your Lordships that-(A) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus of in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and restrain the respondents Nos.1 and 2 for exercising any powers under sub-section (2) of sec. 3 of the Act and ordering the preventive detention of the petitioner.(B) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash and set aside the order passed by the respondent No.2 issued in purported exercise of powers under su...
Saiyad NasiruddIn Saiyadali Vs. Kuburabegum Wd/O. Saiyad AjimuddIn Kam ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-27-1999
Reported in: (2000)4GLR836
1. In this petition under the provisions of Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order passed in Revision Application No. TEN.B.S. 105/92 dated 20.2.99 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. By virtue of the said order, the tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT in Tenancy Case No. 10372/82 dated 3.5.91 and order dated 17.5.92 passed by the Deputy Collector, Navsari in Tenancy Appeal No. 28/91.2. The facts pertaining to the case are as under. The petitioner was claiming to be a tenant in respect of lands bearing Blocks Nos. 147, 247, 146 and 148 situated at Village: Munsad and had therefore submitted an application under the provisions of sec. 70(b) and sec. 70(nb) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said application was rejected by the Mamlatdar and ALT by his order dated 3.5.91 on the ground that the petitioner was having family relation with the ...
P.K. Patel Vs. A.R. Kshatriya and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-27-1999
Reported in: (2000)3GLR1887
C.K. Thakker, Acting C.J.1. Both these appeals are filed against a common judgment and order passed in S.C.A. Nos. 7611 of 1998 and 6325 of 1994 by the learned single Judge on October 27, 1999.2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of L. P. A. No. 1832 filed S.C.A. No. 7611 of 1998 inter alia praying for quashing and setting aside the gradation list dated February 3, 1994 and also for a direction for consideration of their cases for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservators of Forest from the date of passing departmental examination, i.e. June 1990 on the basis of the gradation list prepared under Rule 22 of the Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service) (Recruitment and Examination) Rules, 1974 as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and to decide their seniority above all other Range Forest Officers who were junior to them.3. Similarly, L. P. A. No. 1833 of 1999 is filed against the decision in S.C. A. No. 6325 of 1994 filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 inter alia pra...
Devshibhai Bhimabhai Rabari Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-24-1999
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1097
A.R. Dave, J. 1. Rule. Learned A.G.P. Shri Umesh Trivedi waives service of rule for the respondents. At the request of the learned Advocates, the petition is taken up for final hearing today.2. T.he facts, in a nutshell of the case are as under : By an order dated 8-4-1985, the Deputy Collector, Wadhwan Sub-division of Surendranagar district had granted 2 acres of land which was forming part of government land bearing Survey No. 714 situated at village Vadod. In the order, the Deputy Collector had stated that the land in question was a fragment and was having an irregular shape and as it was not possible to dispose of the said land independently, it was granted in favour of the petitioner who was having his land adjacent to the said land.3. By another order dated 5-12-1992, the Deputy Collector, Wadhwan Subdivision of Surendranagar had granted 1 acre of government land forming part of Survey No. 714 situated at village Vadod, taluka Wadhwan to the petitioner on the ground that the said...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »