Gujarat Court January 2000 Judgments
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bai Shantaben and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ374
D.C. Srivastava and H.K. Rathod, JJ.1. These three appeals arising out of a common award rendered by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panchmahals, Godhra on 29.11.1985 are proposed to be disposed of by a common judgment inasmuch as common questions of law and fact are involved in these three appeals.2. In First Appeal No. 636 of 1986, notice was served on respondent Nos. 1 to 6, 7 and 8. Mr. Maganbhai M. Desai filed appearance on behalf of the respondent Nos. 8/1 and 8/2 but today in spite of revision of list twice nobody appeared on behalf of these respondents. Similarly, in First Appeal No. 626 of 1986 appearance of Mr. J.C. Sheth is shown on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4/1 to 4/4 and 4/6 to 4/8 and Maganlal N. Desai respondent No. 3 has been deleted. None appears on behalf of these respondents and respondent Nos. 4 and 4/5. Mr. J.C. Sheth also did not appear despite revision of list twice. In First Appeal No. 627 of 1986, again Mr. J.C. She...
Tag this Judgment!Jayendra S. Shah Vs. Mukund Somchand Shah and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-2000
Reported in: (2000)2GLR1124
C.K. Thakker, Acting C.J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for appointment of arbitrator.2. The case of the petitioner was that he entered into a partnership agreement with the respondent by a deed of partnership dated April 3, 1992 in the name and style of Mukund Brass Industries. Clause 14 of the Partnership Deed provided that in case of any difference or dispute mentioned therein, the same would be settled through arbitration proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act, as applicable to such proceedings.3. According to the petitioner, since dispute had arisen between the parties, he issued a notice on August 4, 1998 to refer the dispute to arbitrator. The respondent, however, failed to refer the matter to arbitrator and hence, the petition.4. Notice was issued on April 9, 1999 and it was made returnable on May 7, 1999. The matter was thereafter, adjourned from...
Tag this Judgment!Gangeshwarprasad B. Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-20-2000
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ1625Guj
B.C. Patel, J.1. Three petitioners have filed this petition against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) on 15-12-1999 in O.A. No. 583 of 1997. The case of the petitioners as set out in the application before the Tribunal is that applicant No. 1 joined the services of respondent No. 4 somewhere in the month of March, 1983 and worked for about a month. It is his case that thereafter he was re-employed in the months of July and August, 1988. However, due to his ill-health, he could not render services. He was declared fit from 1-1-1991 onwards and thereafter, it is his case that, he continuously worked with the respondent. Applicant No. 2 joined services for the first time on or about 1-12-1983 and he continued to work for a period of one year. From 1-12-1984 to 1-1-1985, he was under medical treatment and on being declared fit, he continued to work from 15-2-1985 to 31-5-1985. Again from 1-6-1985 to August 198...
Tag this Judgment!Kantiji Chanduji Thakore Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-20-2000
Reported in: (2000)2GLR282
1. This appeal arises from the impugned judgment andorder dated 3/12/1990 rendered by the Ld. Addl.Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case No.26/1990. The appellants who have been referred to as'the accused' in this judgment came to be convicted andsentenced for the offences punishable u/Ss. 302 readwith section 149, 307 read with section 149, 325 readwith section 149, 324 read with section 149, 323 readwith section 149 and sections 147 and 148 of the IndianPenal Code (for short 'IPC'). They have been sentenced tolife imprisonment by way of substantive sentence for themain offence. They have also been sentenced to pay finefor the respective offences. The prosecution presentedthe incident in respect of which the accused persons havebeen charged before theLd. Addl. Sessions Judge as perthe following particulars :-The incident occurred at around 5 O'clock in theevening on 1/10/1989 in village Shertha. The victims asalso the deceased on one side and the accused persons onthe oth...
Tag this Judgment!Kantilal Manji Bhuva Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-20-2000
Reported in: 2002(140)ELT374(Guj)
ORDER1. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Tribunal, Western Regional Bench, Mumbai on 18-2-1999, has preferred this petition. From the order it is very clear that despite the large sum which he was required to pay, the Tribunal has directed to pay only a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. It is required to be noted that the case of petitioner is that the petitioner and others were travelling in a car after coming from Muscat by plane and that they were poor and daily wage earners. The Tribunal has considered their statement in detail. Not only that but it was found that even on an earlier occasion the applicant was engaged in smuggling activities. Smuggled gold was concealed. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal which is an interim order. Hence rejected. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs. Interim relief stands vacated....
Tag this Judgment!V. Laxmikant and Co. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2000
Reported in: (2000)2GLR492
C.K. Thakkar, Actg. C.J.1. All these appeals arise out of a common judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 1st May, 1998. The appellants were the original petitioners. They filed the above petitions and prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside the order dated 9th July, 1997 passed by a Tribunal constituted under the Gujarat Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1992) on an application Ex. 5 in TAR No. 310 of 1996 and in companion matters. By the said order, a preliminary contention raised on behalf of the present appellants was negatived. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants before the Tribunal was that the proceedings before Arbitrator were over and hence they could not have been transferred to the Tribunal in view of the provisions of Section 21 of the Act of 1992.2. Before the learned Single Judge, it was argued that the provisions of Sections 1...
Tag this Judgment!Shankerji Cheljaji Thakor Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-2000
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ239Guj
ORDER1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3965 of 1999. The petitioners contended that their services are pensionable and their services cannot be terminated without following the procedure. 2. 14 persons, by filing a joint petition approached this Court by making a statement that they were working as Rojamdars (daily wagers) since 1970. In the petition, the period of service is not clearly set out so as to say that they have completed particular period as mentioned in the Resolution/Notification published by the Government of Gujarat through its Roads and Building Department being resolution No. WCE 1588/5/I-G. 2 dated October 17, 1988. The period of service or the days for which they worked in a particular year is not mentioned anywhere in the petition. So far as the nature of the work is concerned, they have come out with a case that they were engaged in the cleaning of canals by taking out mud whic...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›