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.
JaimIn J. Desai Vs. Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Guj139; (2000)1GLR920
J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. What is in 'focus :-The main question, in the focus, which, revolves, round, for determination and decision, in this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), is, 'Whether, an appeal would lie under Clause 15, of the Letters Patent Appeal of the Bombay High Court, applicable to the Gujarat High Court, to a Division Bench of this Court, from the judgment of a Single Judge, of this Court, recorded and rendered in exercise of Appellate Jurisdiction arising out of 'Appeals from Orders' involv-ing and warranting analysis, interpretation of, and applicability of the provisions' : (i) Clauses 15 and 44 of LPA of Bombay Applicable to Gujarat (ii) Sections 100-A 102(2), Section 104(1) & (2) 105,106 107 and 109 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and (iii) Order 43, Rule 1 (r) and Order 45, Rule 3 of the CPC and (iv) Article 133(1) and (2) and Article 134-A and Article 147 of the Constitution of India. 2. The appeal, before the learned Single Judge, came to be filed, against the Interlocutory...
Rambhai Bhailalbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-1999
Reported in: (2000)4GLR97
A.R. Dave, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 14.8.98 passed in Revision Application No. TEN.B.A. 225/98 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Being aggrieved by an order passed by the Deputy Collector, Radhanpur, dated 15.7.93 passed in Ceiling Appeal No. 2/93, the petitioner had filed a revision application before the tribunal on 10.6.98. As the said revision application was filed after about 5 years, on the ground of delay the said revision application was rejected by the impugned order dated 14.8.98. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this court.2. The facts in a nutshell with regard to the case are as under:-3. The Mamlatdar and ALT (Ceiling), Palanpur had decided in Ceiling Case No. 3/87 (remand) that the petitioner, alongwith his wife was holding 97 acres and 30 gunthas of land. According to the provisions of Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the pe...
Caps and Containers Vs. Bank of Baroda
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-17-1999
Reported in: (2000)2GLR749
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.2. Challenge has been made to the order of the Judge, City Civil Court No.5, Ahmedabad dated 8-12-1993 below Ex.1 in Darkhast No. 742 of 1990 whereunder objection filed by the petitioners against the execution of the decree passed against them came to be rejected.3. The facts of the case in short compass are that in summary civil suit No. 1079 of 1977 on 17th February, 1978 a decree was came to be passed by the learned trial court against the petitioners in favour of the Bank of Baroda, Ahmedabad, the plaintiff thereof. The execution application has been filed which came to be rejected on 27th September, 1985. The present Darkhast is filed on 10th October, 1990. An objection has been raised that this Darkhast is barred by limitation as 12 years have already been expired from the date of decree which objection was not accepted and the learned Executing Court issued the jangam warrant against the petitioners. Hence, this rev...
Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad Vs. Janakkumar G. Vyas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-17-1999
Reported in: (2000)1GLR851
J.M. Panchal, J.1. In all these appeals, which are instituted under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, question of interpretation and ambit of powers of Municipal authorities under section 260 read with section 478 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act,1949 ('the Act' for short) arises for our consideration. As common question of facts and law arise for our consideration in these appeals, we propose to dispose of them by this common judgment. 2. Special CivilApplication No.5555/93 out of which Letters Patent Appeal No. 553/94 arises, was originally filed by 55 persons. Pursuant to order dated June 18, 1993 passed by the Court, petitioners no.56 to 77 were added. However, the Court vide its order dated June 11, 1993 had directed that separate petitions should be filed for petitioners other than petitioner no.1. Therefore, separate petitions being Special Civil Applications No.5711/93 to 5764/93 and Special Civil Applications No. 6321/93 to 6342/93 were filed, which have give...
Pramodkumar Kanchedilal JaIn Vs. State of Gujarat Through Secretary
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-17-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3231; (2000)3GLR360
A.L. Dave, J. 1. The District Magistrate, Ahmedabad passed order dated August 8, 1999 detaining the petitioner under the provision of section 3[2] of the Prevention of Black Marketing & Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 [hereinafter referred to as `the PBM Act' for short].2. In the grounds of detention, the detaining authority recorded that the petitioner in association with others had engaged in activities which were capable of disrupting supply of essential commodities like kerosene. The allegation made against the petitioner is that he has made illegal use of the controlled blue kerosene. The license is issued to the Ahmedabad Kerosene & Oil Supply cooperative Society Ltd., the petitioner is the Manager thereof and he has continued these illegalities for personal gain. After considering the possibility of resorting to less drastic remedy, the authority came to a conclusion that, in order to immediately prevent the petitioner from pursuing his illegal activit...
Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-17-1999
Reported in: (2000)3GLR186
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. Notice of this writ petition was served on the respondents. Shri S.N. Shelat, learned Addl. Advocate General with Shri S.P. Hasulkar appeared and argued the matter for and on behalf of respondents No.1 & 3, whereas Shri P.M. Thakkar and Shri N.K. Pahva appeared for respondent No.3 and Shri J.R. Nanavati, appeared for respondent No.4. The remaining respondents did not appear despite service of notice. Counter Affidavits have been filed by the respondents No.1 to 4. As such this petition is proposed to be finally disposed of at this stage.2. In the writ petition, 13 prayers have been made by the petitioners. The Petitioner No.1 is Palitana Sugar Mills Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, whereas the petitioner No.2 is the Managing Director of the petitioner No.1 company. No doubt number of prayers have been sought in the writ petition, but the main dispute is regarding notification Annexure A/2 dated 6.8.1999 issued by the re...
Ashokkumar Kantilal Rathod Vs. Bhavnaben Ashokkumar Rathod
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-16-1999
Reported in: I(2001)DMC87; (2000)4GLR677
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Challenge has been made by petitioner-husband to the order of the Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhinagar, dated 18th June 1999 in Hindu Marriage Petition No.30 of 1998 under which, by way of pendete-lite, alimony of Rs.1,000/= and Rs.2000/= as costs of expenses of litigation were granted to the respondent-wife. Translation of this order reads as under: It is hereby ordered that the opponent shall pay to the applicant Rs.1,000/= (Rupees One Thousand Only) every month till the final disposal of the case. It is further ordered that the applicant be paid Rs.2,000/= by way of expenses of advocate. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this order has been passed by the learned trial court without hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has next been contended that the amount of Rs.1,000/= awarded towards maintenance to the wife is towards higher side. Lastly it is contended that the petitioner is ready even today to keep the wife with him but she is no...
Vijaysinh Bhamabhai Dodiya Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-16-1999
Reported in: (2000)4GLR482
M.R. Calla, J.1. This Special Civil Application is directed against the order dt.20.8.99 (Annexure 'A' to the petition) whereby the petitioner, who has been working as a Professor in Surgery, was placed under suspension.2. While the petitioner was working as Professor in Surgery at M.P.Shah Medical College, Jamnagar, by an order dt.26.11.98 he was transferred to Bhavnagar.Against this transfer order dt.26.11.98 the petitioner preferred a Special Civil Application No.10558/98 alleging that the petitioner held the post of Professor since 1986 and that he was a recognised Post Graduate Teacher since 1987, that he held various positions of academic distinction in various Universities and other academic bodies. The aforesaid transfer order was challenged on the grounds of malafides and it was submitted that the transfer order was aimed to deprive the petitioner of the positions of academic distinctions including membership of the Senate and the Academic Council of Saurashtra University, as ...
State of Gujarat Vs. Rambhaben Josabhai by Lrs.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-1999
Reported in: AIR1991Guj156; (1991)1GLR591
C.V. Jani, J. 1. First Appeals Nos. 142/80 to 150180 under S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 arise from a common judgment and awards of the learned Joint Judge, Jam agar in Land Acquisition Cases Nos. 1 / 76 to 10/ 76 respectively. First Appeal No. 141/80 arise - s from the same judgment and award of the learned Joint Jurge, Jamnagar in Land Acquisition Case No. 7/76 and First Appeal No. 153/80 arises from the same judgment and award of the learned Joint Judge, Jam agar in Land Acquisition Case No. 1/78.2. The lands, which are involved in this appeal, were acquired for providing a Danger Zone Area of the classified range at Jam agar. Notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the' Act', was issued on 4-7-1969 and it was published in the Government Gazette, Part-1, on 31-7-69. Notification under S. 6 was published on 11-11-79, and the Deputy Collector, Jam agar who acted as Land Acquisition Officer, made his, award on 12-876, The claimant...
Ravindra Kautik Patil Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2703; (2000)4GLR692
A.L. Dave, J.1. The petitioner is a detenu who came to be detained under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA Act for short) by virtue of an order passed by Commissioner of Police, Surat City, Surat on 17-3-1999 in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the PASA Act.1.1 The grounds of detention indicate that the detaining authority took into consideration, an offence registered against the petitioner under the Bombay Prohibition Act, so also the statements of two witnesses in respect of two unregistered offences, while passing the order. The detaining authority after having been satisfied with the facts stated by the witnesses in respect of unregistered offences as correct and the fear expressed by these witnesses as genuine qua the petitioner decided to exercise powers under Section 9(2) of the PASA Act and maintained anonymity in respect of these two witnesses. The authority considered the possibility of resorting to less drastic remedi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »