Gujarat Court June 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.
Mukesh Kanaiyalal Luha Sindhi Vs. District Magistrate
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)3GLR886
R.M. Doshit, J.1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.2. The present petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India, is directed against the order of preventive detention dated 13th August, 1998 made by the District Magistrate, Panch Mahals, under the powers conferred upon him under Sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act [hereinafter referred to as, `the Act']. The order was executed on the same date. The petitioner has been thus detained under the Act since 13th August, 1998. Pending this petition, on 7th September, 1998, the petitioner had, through his learned advocate, made a representation to the State Government against the order of detention and had also asked for a copy of the Search & Seizure Panchnama in respect of the offence registered as C.R No. 160 of 1998 in Godhara Taluka Police Station against the petitioner and two others. The said representation was rejected by the State Government and ...
Parmeshwarnarayan Vs. Collector and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-14-1999
Reported in: (2000)1GLR521
1. The petitioner in this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed to direct the Collector, Ahmedabad to initiate proceedings under the Bombay Land Revenue Code against the respondent No. 2 in pursuance of the recovery certificate issued by the Labour Court dated 27th April, 1998 at annexure A. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has discharged duties in the office of the respondent No. 2 from December 1986 to January 1988 and during that period, even though the company had declared lock out, the petitioner was called to attend the duty. The petitioner worked as a steno secretary to the management of respondent No. 2. Since the petitioner was not paid the amount of wages due, he filed Recovery Application No. 3121 of 1990 in the labour court, Ahmedabad, which was allowed by the labour court by its order dated 2nd December, 1997 and the respondent No. 2 was directed to pay the amount of Rs. 74,212 and in addition, an amount of Rs. 250 by way of costs. S...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›