Gujarat Court September 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.
Acquguard Plastics and Polymers Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-1999
Reported in: 2000(67)ECC360; 2000(121)ELT29(Guj)
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Rule, service of which is waived by learned advocate Mr. M. R. Shah appearing on behalf of the respondents. In the peculiar facts and special circumstances and upon joint request, this petition is taken up for final hearing today itself. 2. It is noticed that the main grievance of the petitioner Company is against the non-action in non-hearing the stay application pending the appeal by the Appellate Authority and at the same time taking coercive action for the recovery of central excise dues. Admittedly, stay application is not decided and the petitioner had frequently requested for early hearing and remained present through its authorised person. Be that as it may, in the light of the facts of the case and the decision of this Court in D.C.W. vs. Commissioner of Appeals, reported in 1997 (2) GLR 913, the stay application is required to be expeditiously heard as coercive recovery proceedings have also simultaneously started by the respondent authorities. Therefore, in ...
Gujarat Agricultural University Vs. Bhupendrasingh T. Rathod
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-1999
Reported in: (2000)4GLR28
C.K. Thakkar, Actg. C.J.1. Civil Application No. 10057 of 1999 is filed by the State of Gujarat. Interim relief is prayed in terms of para 5 which reads as under :'5.The applicant, therefore, prays that: (A) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal, Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned orders dated 2nd August 1999 and 9th August 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 4774 of 1999. (B) Be pleased to pass such other and further relief as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.'2. In Civil Application No. 10038 of 1999,filed by Gujarat Agricultural University, interim relief prayed is in terms of para 9 which is as under :' The applicant, therefore, prays that: A. Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Letters Patent Appeal, Your Lordships be pleased to stay the impugned orders dated 2nd August 1999 and 9th August 1999 passed by ...
Pruthvirajsinh @ Aniruddhsinh Vs. R.K. Singhla, Deputy Director
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2315; (2000)2GLR438
M.R. Calla, J. 1. Initially Special Criminal Application No.309 of 1999 was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, before this Court on 5.4.1999 by the petitioner with the prayer that the order dated 4.1.1996, (Annexure 'A' to the petition) passed by the learned City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad under sec.319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for brevity) be set aside on the strength of the latest pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme court and the proceedings against the present petitioner be ordered to be dropped. When the said Special Criminal Application came up before the Court on 9.4.1999. The Court granted leave to amend converting the Special Criminal Application into Criminal Misc. Application under sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code as it appears from the faint writing at the top of the order thereof dated 9.4.1999. Notice was also issued on 9.4.1999 and on the very same date appearance was also entered on behalf of respondents nos.1 an...
Sampatraj C. Shah and ors. Vs. Lajpatrai C. Agrawal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Guj67
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. This is an Appeal from Order dated 16-1-1992 of the Additional Principal Judge, Ahmedabad City Civil Court on an application for interim mandatory injunction and prohibitory injunction, partly allowing injunction application and granting mandatory injunction in terms of paragraph 9(B) of the application for temporary injunction.2. Application Exh. 5 shows that as many as six reliefs were sought, out of which relief (B) only was granted by the trial Court and the other reliefs were refused. The prayer in relief (B) is for issuing mandatory interim order to restore the original name of Chaturbhuj Lajpatrai General Hospital and to display the said name on all the sign boards on the main gate and by the side of the main gate and inside the hospital building and at all other places including literatures, letter heads, stationeries, registers and all other literatures of whatever kind in which the name of the hospital is mentioned till the hearing and disposal of the su...
State of Gujarat Vs. Amarsinhbhai Bhailalbhai Chaudhary
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: (2000)1GLR86
B.C. Patel, J.1. RULE. Mr.Tushar Mehta, learned advocate waives service of Rule for Respondent No.1.2. The State of Gujarat through its Chief Secretary to the Government, being aggrieved by the order dated 09th July, 1999 passed in Special Civil Application No.2397 of 1999, has preferred this appeal. Respondent No.1 preferred Special Civil Application No.1026 of 1998 challenging the appointment of Lokayukta and the said matter is pending before the Division Bench. The respondents received a notice dated 05th February, 1999 from the Registrar of the Lokayukta in Form No.'E'. Without going to the details suffice it to say that an application dated 25th February, 1999 was preferred before His Excellency the Governor of Gujarat under sub-Section (3) of Section 19 of the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Respondent No.1 received the reply dated 09th March, 1999 from the Principal Secretary to His Excellency the Governor of Gujarat stating that ' The State Gov...
B.B. Dwivedi - Gas Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: (2000)4GLR536
R. Balia, J.1. The petitioner at the time of filing this petition was aggrieved of the promotion / appointment given to one Mr. J.H. Babaria on ex-cadre post by order dated 19/11/1998 without considering the case of the petitioner and the persons junior to the petitioner in the cadre of service members of which were considered for such selection on being appointed. The petitioner was also apprehensive of the fact that many more persons junior to him may be appointed in future by passing his claim to the post for being considered on the basis of seniority and other relevant rules.2. During the pendency of this petition, by way of interim order dated 21/5/99, the Court directed that if the Departmental Promotion Committee has taken any decision to promote the officer[s] other than the present petitioner, especially those who are junior to the petitioner, then, such promotion should not be effected or implemented so far as junior[s] of the petitioner is/are concerned. This order was ultim...
Shri Navinchandra Fakirchand Champaneri Vs. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-16-1999
Reported in: (2000)GLR531
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The petitioner, a junior clerk of Valsad District Panchayat, by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is praying for directions to the respondents to follow the directions given by the Panchayat Minister under the order dated 20.9.97, to reinstate the petitioner back in services on the original post as held by the Panchayat Minister that the circumstances pointed out by petitioner are exceptional and just. It has next been prayed that the order dated 8.9.93 under which the resignation of the petitioner was accepted be held to be illegal, ultra vires and bad in law. Prayer has also been made for interim relief.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed on 3.6.81 as a junior clerk in the office of District Panchayat, Valsad, at Valsad. On 29.4.91, the petitioner submitted his resignation. It is the case of petitioner that resignation submitted by him was never accepted and the petitioner was not informed regar...
Govindbhai Muljibhai Patel Vs. Jt. Registrar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-1999
Reported in: (2000)4GLR71
M.S. Shah, J.1. These petitions purporting to be petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, but which are in substance petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution, raise a common question of law about the jurisdiction of the Board of Nominees of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Gujarat State at Ahmedabad in entertaining and deciding the arbitration suits (also known as Lavad Suits) under Section 96 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The main contention is that the suit filed by respondent No. 3-Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. being a Multi State Co-operative Society under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 and having its registered office as well as head office in Maharashtra State, was not maintainable before the Board of Nominees in the State of Gujarat.2. The facts leading to filing of these petitions are similar and may briefly be stated as under :-2.1 Special Civil Application No. 3029 of 1997 is filed by Govindbhai Muljibhai ...
D.S. Rana and ors. Etc. Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. and ors., Etc.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-13-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Guj45; (2000)2GLR1036
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. This group of petitions raises the question whether a local authority can impose a condition while issuing a trade licence that the trade or its operation which in the opinion of the Commissioner, is dangerous to health, life or property or likely to create nuisance either from its nature or by reason of the manner in which or the conditions under which the same is or is proposed to be carried on, can be carried on only in an industrial zone, thereby prohibiting such trade or operation to be carried on in other areas including residential areas.2. In this set of three petitions, the lead matter being Special Civil Application No. 2490 of 1999 has been filed by thirty three petitioners against the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Deputy Health Officer of the Corporation and the State of Gujarat, seeking a direction on the respondents to renew the licences of the petitioners as required under the provisions of The Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 a...
Ajitsinh Chaturji Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-13-1999
Reported in: (2000)4GLR405
R. Balia, J.1. Rule. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has been appointed as an Extension Officer [Cooperation] at the District Panchayat, Surat on 27/5/1964. At his own request, the petitioner was transferred from Surat Panchayat to District Panchayat, Mehsana at Chanasama on 1/3/1981. As the transfer from one district to another district has taken place at the request of the petitioner, he was placed at the bottom of seniority amongst the Extension Officers as on that date in the District Panchayat, Mehsana, resulting in that for the purpose of seniority amongst Extension Officer of the District on that date, the length of continuous officiation on the post was not taken as criteria of promotions, but was determined on the basis of special rule governing fixing seniority on being transferred to other district on own request, though for all other purpose, the benefit of past service the petitioner carried with him. Vide Government Resolution dated 5th July 1991, th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »