Gujarat Court February 1999 Judgments
Gokulesh Petroleum P. Ltd. Vs. Himalaya R. Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-1999
Reported in: [2000(84)FLR641]; (1999)3GLR2443; (2000)ILLJ1254Guj
R. Balia, J. 1. Rule Service of rule is waived by learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The facts briefly stated are that the petitioner is the owner of Gokulesh Petrol Pump and had employed respondent Himalaya R. Shah. His services were terminated with effect from 9.7.94 without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act as to the retrenchment. His services were continuous for a period of more than one year. This dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Ahmedabad. At the time of hearing it was urged by the petitioner employer that by written compromise dated 25.7.97 the dispute has been settled out of Court. The workman had accepted in full and final settlement of his claim a sum of Rs. 7301/- which was paid to him and therefore no dispute survives. A compromise deed executed on stamp of Rs. 20/- which was purchased on 24.7.95 signed by the workmen and one Pankaj R. Muravala authorised representative of the employer and an ...
Tag this Judgment!Sangitaben Atulkumar Patel Wife of Dettenu Atulkumar Vs. District Magi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3060
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. The petitioner, through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated 25.8.1998 passed by the District Magistrate, Sabar Kantha at Himatnagar, under Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, (for short 'The Act') and has prayed for quashing the detention order passed against the husband of the petitioner and immediate release of detenu from illegal detention. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu.2. From the grounds of detention it appears that wholesale licence in crude, kerosene was issued in the name of the father in law of the petitioner, viz. Amrutbhai Kodarbhai Patel, who is running his business as proprietor of Atul Trading Co. The other licence is held in the name of the husband of the petitioner, who is running similar business as proprietor of Parth Petroleum Modasa. He too is dealing in crude, kerosene. It was alleged that the detenu ...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Khushal Tiwari Vs. Police Commissioner
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-1999
Reported in: (2001)GLR758
D.C. Srivastava, J. 1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 16.1.1998 passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat City, under Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Anti-social Activity Act (for short 'PASA') and has prayed for quashing of the said order and has also prayed that he may be released forthwith from illegal detention.2. From the grounds of detention it seems that the petitioner was adjudged to be a dangerous person and his activities were found prejudicial for maintenance of public order. Accordingly the impugned order was passed. The grounds of detention further show that the material before the Detaining Authrity for reaching the subjective satisfaction was two registered offences whose details were given in the grounds of detention and also statements of three confidential witnesses. Less drastic remedies were also considered by the Detaining Authority who found the same to be ineffective an...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. Shivkrupa Associates
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-25-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Guj333; (2000)GLR599
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This civil revision application is directed by the defendant-petitioner against the decision of the Extra Assistant Judge, Surat dated 9-8-93 partly allowing Civil Misc. Appeal No. 256/92 and setting aside the order passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge (S. D.), Surat below application Ex. 5, dated 15-10-92 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1179/92 and directing the respondent, herein to deposit only 25% of the disputed bill within 15 days of the receipt of the order.3. The plaintiff-respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1179/92 against the defendant-petitioner for a declaration and injunction to the effect that its electric power supply cut-off by the defendant petitioner on 23-9-92 be declared to be illegal and for a mandatory order seeking for restoration of the power supply with immediate effect. Along with the suit, the plaintiff respondent filed an application Ex. 5 seeking for interim mandatory order of the restoration of...
Tag this Judgment!Harshadkumar Dhirajlal Aundkat Vs. Assistant Collector
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-25-1999
Reported in: (2000)4GLR853
M.R. Calla, J.1. Heard learned counsel.2. The petitioner herein was allotted a piece of land admeasuring 1277.40 sq.mtrs. out of S.No.707 situated at village Dhrol by the order dt.9.7.82 for constructing a Factory premises for the purposes of manufacturing soap and other products. The petitioner failed to make use of this land allotted to him and did not make any construction within the stipulated period. The Assistant Collector, Jamnagar by his order dt.9.8.89 directed to take the possession of the said land from the petitioner on account of the breach of the conditions committed by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an Appeal against the said order before the Collector, Jamnagar and that Appeal was rejected. He then preferred Revision Application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, which was also rejected on 12.10.95. The petitioner in this very cause preferred Special Civil Application No.1245/96 stating therein the reasons for his inability to raise the construction in quest...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shobhnaben Girishbhai Parsi and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: 2000ACJ193; AIR1999Guj216a; (1999)2GLR1113
C.K. Buch, J.1. The appellant -- United India Insurance Company Ltd. -- original opponent No, 3 has preferred this appeal against the judgment and award dated 31-12-1985 passed by the MAC Tribunal (Main) at Ahmedabad in MAC Petition No. 76/84. Original applicants are Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and original opponents i.e. driver and owner of the autorickshaw involved in the accident are respondents Nos. 5 and 6.2. According to the original applicants-claimants, deceased Girishbhai was going on a scooter slowly and carefully towards Prakash Stores via Roopali theatre in the city of Ahmedabad on 21 -4-1984 at about 2.30 p.m. When he reached 'T' Junction, the autorickshaw driven by the respondent No. 5 bearing registration No. GRS 3184 and owned by the respondent. No. 6, came in a careless and negligent manner and while trying to overtake the victim scooterist, knocked him down from behind with great force, as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and was taken to the hospital, wher...
Tag this Judgment!Farukh Shaikh Ibrahim Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3474
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. Through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 22.6.1998 passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat City, under Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act (for short 'PASA') and has prayed for quashing of the said detention order and has further prayed that he may be released from illegal detention.2. From the grounds of detention it appears that the petitioner was found to be dangerous person in view of his repeated commission of offences punishable under Chapter : XVI & XVII of the Indian Penal Code. Beside this, two confidential witnesses narrated the two incidents which, in the opinion of the Detaining Authority, created situation prejudicial for maintenance of public order. The detaining Authority also considered alternative efficacious remedies and found that action under Section 107 and 110 of the Code of Criminal procedure could not be efficacious. Notice of...
Tag this Judgment!Jaganben Arvindbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: (1999)3GLR2318
S.K. Keshote, J.1. By this revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Code'), the plaintiff - petitioner challenges the Order of the Second Joint District Judge, Bharuch dated 26-4-1995 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 114 of 1994 confirming the Order of the Civil Judge (S.D.), Bharuch in Regular Civil Suit No. 176 of 1994 passed below Ex. 5 on 11-8-1994 under which it declined to grant a temporary injunction as prayed for pending final disposal of the suit. The facts of the case which are not in dispute are as follows:2. The plaintiff-petitioner was granted by the Mamlatdar, Vagra wholesale kerosene licence which bears No. 1 of 1984 under the provisions of Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981. On 11-11-1992 the business premises of the plaintiff was inspected by the Mamlatdar, Vagra. During the course of the inspection the inspecting officer found as many as 11 irregularities thereon. Show-ca...
Tag this Judgment!Neeta Shreyas Joshi Vs. Shreyas Siddharth Joshi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Guj251; I(2000)DMC323; (1999)2GLR1170
ORDERM.R. Calla, J.1. This Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 21st January, 1999 passed by the City Civil Court, Court No. 9, Ahmedabad City, below Application Exh. 45 in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 72 of 1996.2. The petitioner and the respondent who will be hereinafter referred to as the wife and husband, were married on 6th December, 1994, at Ahmedabad. They resided together at Bombay up to 29th March, 1995. In the end of March, 1995, the wife was sent or came back to Ahmedabad to appear in the examination. The wife's case is that the husband did not take her back to Bombay after the exams were over and the case of the husband is that the wife did not return. The husband then filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the wife on 'the ground of non-consumation of marriage and the physical as wellas mental cruelty, on 7th February, 1996, in the City Civil Court, at Ahmedab...
Tag this Judgment!Munna Scrap Traders Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Guj240; 2000(69)ECC60; 2000(116)ELT453(Guj)
B.C. Patel, J. 1. The petitioner was required to approach this Court under unusual and peculiar circumstances, by invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, under following circumstances which are broadly admitted. 2. The petitioner under an agreement dated 20-7-1998, purchased a Liquefied Gas Tanker, 'M. J. Manuel Belgrano'. This vessel was purchased by the petitioner for the purpose of breaking. Prior thereto, the vessel arrived within the territorial waters of customs at Alang Port. On or about 27-5-1998, the vessel arrived on its own steam on Alang Anchorage. On 28-5-1998, rummaging clearance was granted as nothing objectionable was found. On 29-5-1998 'beaching permission was also granted to M/s. Kathiawar Steels. Bill of Entry for home consumption which was for the purpose of breaking ship was filed by M/s. Kathiawar Steels on 29-5-1995 which was accepted by the concerned authority. 3. From the record, it appears that it is the case of the petitioner and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »