Gujarat Court October 2000 Judgments
Union of India Vs. H.K. Dhruva and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1525
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Union of India, the appellant-original applicant has filed this appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the judgment and decree dated 18-7-1989 passed by the learned Judge, Court No. 6, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 494 of 1985 (for setting aside the award) as well as Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 359 of 1985 (for making Award a rule of the Court) wherein the learned Judge was pleased to partly modify the award of the arbitrator as regards interest and pleased to dismiss the application of Union of India for setting aside the award under Section 30 read with Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.2. The facts giving rise to these appeals are as under :2.1 Union of India through Executive Engineer (Construction), Western Railway, Rajkot, invited tender No. XEN(C)/RJT/245 in 1979 for providing Island platform and extension of existing platform in Rajkot yard in connec...
Tag this Judgment!Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Vikram R ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-19-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1226; (2001)2GLR1474
D.C. Srivastava, J. 1. This revision has been filed by Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Special Investigation Unit, Government of India, challenging the order dated 3-8-1999 of Special Judge, Ahmedabad, allowing the application of the respondent who is accused No. 1 and closing the prosecution evidence and giving a date for recording the statement of the accused. 2. Shri Amit J. Shah, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Shri M. A. Parekh, learned Counsel for the respondents have been heard. 3. Brief facts giving rise to this Revision are as under : The revisionist was prosecuting the respondent No. 1 and another accused under Sees. 120(B), 420, 467, 468, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charges were framed against both the accused on 7-1-1987. Both the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution evidence commenced on 12-5-1987. It is informed that thereafter, as many as about 55 prosecution witnesses were exa...
Tag this Judgment!Satpalsingh Ajitsingh Bajaj Vs. Kalyani Trading Co. Through Its Partne ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2243
D.C. Srivastava, J. 1. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, passed on 21-1-2000 is under challenge in this Revision. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this Revision are as under : The truck No. GRX 4963 was seized by the Police on 4-4-1999 as case property for investigation of offences under Sees. 392, 406, 420 read with Section 114 of the I. P. Code. The said case was registered on the complaint of Satpalsingh Ajitsingh who is revisionist in this Revision. He moved an application praying that the aforesaid truck be given in his interim custody on imposing terms and conditions. He apprehended that if the truck is not given in his custody and remains idle at the police station for long time, then it will be damaged and since the truck is the sole source of business of the complainant he will suffer monetary loss as well. Objection was submitted against this Application by Sunilbhai D. Kalyani, partner of M/s. Kalyani Trading Co. inter alia pleading that the revisi...
Tag this Judgment!Laljibhai Shivshanker Trivedi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ833; (2001)3GLR2033
D.C. Srivastava, J. 1. In this revision, the order dated June 26, 2000 of the Special Judge, Junagadh is under challenge. In the impugned order, the learned Special Judge has rejected the application of the accused/revisionist for dropping the proceedings against him, on the ground that, the sanction for prosecution is invalid because, it was not granted by the appointing Authority who is competent to order his dismissal.2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision are that, the revisionist is being prosecuted on charges under Secs. 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The impugned order shows, that the charges under the aforesaid Sections have been framed against the accused/ revisionist.3. Afterwards he moved an application that, since the sanction to prosecute him is illegal, the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act may be dropped in view of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In short, the contention of the revisionist...
Tag this Judgment!O.N.G.C. Vs. Essar Steel Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR876
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The appellant - Oil & Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) has challenged the judgment and order dated 22/3/2000 recorded by 6th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) Vadodara in Arbitration Misc. Civil Application No. 106 of 1999, whereby, the application u/S. 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 has been made rule of Court with slight modification by invoking the test of the provision of section 37(1)(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (1940 Act).2. A resume of the material facts giving rise to this appeal may, briefly, be narrated so as to appreciate the merit of the present appeal at the admission stage and in order to appreciate the merits the learned advocate appearing for the appellant - ONGC placed reliance on the documentary evidence which was placed for our consideration at the admission stage. Following aspects have remained uncontroverted - (1) Agreement was entered into on 25/4/1991 between the original claimant Essar Steel Ltd. and respondent ONGC for deployment of drilling...
Tag this Judgment!Karsandas Shankarlal Patel and ors. Vs. Ahmedabad Education Society an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-17-2000
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR208]; (2001)IILLJ1641Guj
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.This matter is squarely covered by decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6747 of 1995 (Coram: Mr. Justice K.R. vYAS J.) decided on October 14, 1998.2. Otherwise also, from the document, Annexure-B, the society has decided to give gratuity to both teaching and non-teaching staff. Whether under the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947, or Rules framed thereunder, there is provision of giving gratuity to the teaching or non-teaching staff or not is not material. Even if there is no provision for giving gratuity to the employees, it is always open to the employer to give benefit of gratuity to its employees. The Ahmedabad Education Society exhibited itself to be a model employer and despite the fact that there is no provision for giving gratuity to the teaching and non-teaching staff it has extended that benefit which deserves to be appreciated.3. I fail to see any justification in the action of the Society to cha...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nufoam Industries
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-17-2000
Reported in: [2001]252ITR697(Guj)
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue in relation to the assessee's case for the assessment year 1978-79, the 'following two substantial questions of law have been referred for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has been right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the basis of the assessment year 1978-79 being considered as the fourth assessment year excluding the initial year ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to carry forward deficiency under Section 80J(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and claim the same in the year in which the assessee had profits ?' Both the above questions arise on the provisions of Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The first question is : 'whether the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 80J on the basi...
Tag this Judgment!Mohini Wd/O Dr. Ashok Detagir Bawa Vs. Kheemchand Pritamdas Krishnani
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3014
M.R. Calla, J.1. This Special Criminal Application in the nature of habeas corpus was filed on 4.9.2000 by the petitioner, i.e. mother of the boy named Hrishikesh whose date of birth is 5.10.1987. The petitioner has come up with the case that she had married Dr.Ashok Detagir Bawa on 13.12.1985 at Ahmedabad and out of this wedlock, a male child was born on 5.10.1987, who was named as Hrishikesh. Said boy, Hrishikesh was admitted in Lower KG in 1990 at Ahmedabad and he continued his studies at St. Xavier's, Sardar Nagar Hansol, Ahmedabad till 1996. In the meantime on 12.8.1994, unfortunately, the petitioner's husband met with an accident and died accidental death. It is also the case of the petitioner that she is an educated lady and is serving with Orient Insurance Company Ltd. It is also her case that she has been serving with the said Company since June 1995. She was promoted as Senior Assistant and was posted at Daman. Thereafter, she was transferred to Idar and then to Himmatnagar. ...
Tag this Judgment!Hasmukhlal H. Shah Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR842
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Mr. P.V. Hathi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Pandya, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities. Though notice of rule has been served to the respondent no. 2, no one appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2.2. In the present petition, rule has been issued by this court on 1st May, 1989 and ad-interim relief has been granted by this court.3. The brief facts of the giving rise to this petition are as under :-The petitioner is a resident of village Pedhada, Ta.Lakhatar, Dist.Surendranagar and his fore-fathers were doing agricultural work. At the time when the Saurashtra State was formed, the petitioner and his fore-fathers were doing actual agricultural work. However, with a view to avoid any complication in future, the petitioner made an application to the Competent Officer viz. the Assistant Collector, Dhrangadhra to grant permission to purchase agricultural land. The said application was supported by the necessary ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanubhai Kalidas Patel Vs. Maniben Wd/O. Prabhubhai Ranchhodbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)GLR269
H.K. Rathod, J. 1.Mr. G. R. Shaikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf for the petitioner. Mr. Pandya, learned AGP appearing on behalf for the respondents. Though notices have been served to the respondent no.1, but no one remains present on behalf of the respondent no.1 2. In the present petition, Rule has been issued by this Court on 12th September, 1990 and ad-interim relief in terms of para-9(B) has been granted by this Court.3. The brief facts of the giving rise to this petition are as under:The present petitioners are owners and occupants of Survey No.149, admeasuring 5 Acre - 33 Guntha of Vadod, Taluka Choryashi, District Surat. The said land was of the ownership and occupancy of respondent no.1 Maniben widow of Prabhubhai. The widow Maniben stood a surity i.e. a guarantor for one Shri Makanbhai Mavajibhai who had taken loan from Kudsad Vibha Multi Purpose Cooperative Society Limited of Karjan, Taluka Kamrej of District Surat. That the society took steps for the recovery of it...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »