Gujarat Court December 2000 Judgments
Jyotiben Samir Pawar D/O Rameshchandra N. Pawar Vs. Samir Bhaskar Rao ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-19-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Guj165; II(2001)DMC84; (2001)3GLR2494
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Smt. Jyotiben Samir Pawar, petitioner appellant-original plaintiff, has filed this Revision Application against the judgment and order dated 7-9-2000 passed by the 5th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara, in Special Civil Suit No. 241 of 2000 wherein the learned Judge was pleased to partly allow the application and direct Shri Samir Bhaskar Rao Pawar, defendant husband to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month as an interim maintenance to plaintiff from the date of suit till final disposal of the suit and thereby modified the earlier order dated 23-3-2000 wherein the learned Judge was pleased to fix Rs. 3,000/- as maintenance which was to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.2. The facts giving rise to this revision application are as under :-2.1 Smt. Jyotiben Samir Pawar- original plaintiff has married on 30-1-1996 as per Hindu rites with Shri Samir Bhaskar Rao Pawar-original defendant. The applicant Smt. Jyotiben Samir Pawar filed Special Civil Suit No. 241 of 2000 against th...
Tag this Judgment!General Secretary Gujarat Mazdoor Sena Vs. Municipal Commissioner
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-18-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3549
H.K. Rathod, J.1. The Courts should interpret the constitutional provisions against the social setting of the country so as to show a complete consciousness and deep awareness of the growing requirements of the society, the increasing needs of the nation, burning problems of the day and the complex issues facing the people which the legislature in its wisdom, through beneficial legislation, seeks to solve. The judicial approach should be dynamic rather than static, pragmatic and not pedantic and elastic, rather than rigid.2. Brief facts of the present group of petitions are as under:All the petitioners were appointed by the respondents in Mid Day Meal Scheme ('the Scheme' for short). According to the case of the petitioners, they were appointed and were working since many years. According to the petitioners, on each academic year, necessary forms were being filled in by the respondents and periodical appointments were being given to them with an artificial break of vacation period for ...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Electricity Board and anr. Vs. Patel Manguben Khemabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1745
P.B. Majmudar, J. 1. The petitioners are the original defendants, against whom the respondent herein has filed a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 19 of 1993, in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Himamagar. The said suit is for a declaration and injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that even though he is not a consumer of the defendant No. 1-Gujarat Electricity Board, still, he has been subjected to bills, that the defendants had no authority to issue such bills to the plaintiff, and that therefore, the bill, which was dated 7th January, 1993 is without authority. It was, therefore, prayed in the suit that it may be declared that the defendants have no right to issue any bill to the plaintiff and that a permanent injunction be given restraining the defendants from taking any action for the purpose of recovery of any amount on the basis of such bills. 2. According to the defendants, the plaintiff was liable to pay Rs. 41,836/-, for which he was served who the bill and ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajitkumar Shantilal Gandhi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-2000
Reported in: (2001)GLR276
H.H. Mehta, J.1. The original accused of Criminal Case No. 5088 of 1990 registered on the basis of chargesheet filed by Police in CR No. I. 101/84 of Gandhinagar Police Station have by preferring this Criminal Relvision Application u/s 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'Cr. P.C.') challenged the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 7-8-1993 passed below the application exh. 34 in the aforesaid criminal case requesting the trial Court to discharge them from the case on the ground that the case initiated against them is time barred.2. The facts leading to this criminal revision application in a nutshell are as follows :On or about 4-4-1984 the accused no. 1 to 5 were the Goverrnment servants and they were serving as Deputy Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Work Charge Clerk, and Work Charge Clerk respectively. As per the complaint lodged by the Police Inspector, Gandhinagar on 4-4-1984 in Gandhinagar Police Station, it is the case of the...
Tag this Judgment!Kantibhai Anarji Thakor and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2292
A.L. Dave, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order rendered in Sessions Case No. 125 of 1992, on 26th February, 1993, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, wherein the present appellants came to be convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 141, 143 & 149 of I.P.C.. The appellants were ordered to undergo R.I., for life. 2. The facts of the case can be narrated as under : An F.I.R., came to be Jodged by Bhaluji Nagarji Thakor of village Dhanavada, Taluka-Sidhpur, District-Mehsana, on 29th January, 1992, before the Police Sub-Inspector, Kakoshi Police Station camping at Dhanavada. 2.2 In the F.I.R., it is stated that on the previous day i.e., 28th January, 1992, when the complainant along with his father Nagarji and brother Naluji were at their home, his father came to him and told him to go to the field for watering. His father was returning to the house of Naluji. When his father was near the house of Kantiji Anarji accused No. 1,...
Tag this Judgment!Gunvantbhai Ambalal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2747
M.R. Calla, J.1. The petitioner claims himself to be the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 588/3 situated in village Harni of District Vadodara, admeasuring 7 acres 56 gunthas and 74 sq. mtr. According to the petitioner, this land is being used for the purpose of agriculture. The respondents had issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 30th June, 1991 declaring their intention to acquire the petitioner's land along with other lands. According to the notification, the land was sought to be acquired for the purpose of Transport Nagar. According to the petitioner, there are other lands adjoining to the petitioner's agricultural land. It is also the case of the petitioner that the lands situated in village Harni of District Vadodara was designated in the final development plan sanctioned by the State Government in the year 1984 for Transport Nagar and according to him, the lands in question are not situated in the said area which is reserved for in the developm...
Tag this Judgment!U.N. Pai Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-13-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1640; (2001)3GLR1999
D.H. Waghela, J. 1. Rule. Service of Rule is waived by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. These three applications for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are filed by three officers of the Indian Oil Corporation (I.O.C.) upon being arrested pursuant to a First Information Report (F.I.R.) registered with the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.), Gandhinagar and upon rejection of their similar applications by a reasoned order of the learned Special Judge. The offences alleged in the F.I.R., are punishable under Sees. 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Subsequently, the offences under Sees. 467 and 471 of the I.P.C. are added in the case by application dated 24-11-2000 filed by the C.B.I., in the Court of learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad. About five months after the F.I.R., the applicants were arrested on 10-10-2000 and remanded to police custody...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Chemical Corporation and ors. Vs. Miraben Prafulbhai Contractor a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Guj171
M.R. Calla, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel and perused the record and proceedings.2. This is the defendants' First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Addl. Principal Judge, Court No. 2, City Civil Court, at Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 618 of 1981 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed. The trial Court has made the following three declarations in favour of the plaintiff:--(i) The plaintiff was a partner in the defendant No. 1 firm with a share of 10 NP in the profit and loss of the business of the said firm. (ii) The plaintiff had retired from the defendant No. 1 firm from 31st Dec. 1978, and (iii) The plaintiff was entitled to rendition of account from 1-10-1978 to 31st Dec. 1978 from the defendants. While decreeing the suit with the declaration as above, the trial Court also ordered that at the time of taking the accounts, the assets of the defendant No. 1 firm should also be taken into consideration...
Tag this Judgment!Police Commissioner, Vadodara City and ors. Vs. Kiritsinh Mahobbatsinh ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1707
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. By means of filing this Civil Revision Application, the petitioners-State of Gujarat seek to challenge the order dated 22nd June, 1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Vadodara in Regular Civil Suit No. 317 of 1998 granting ad interim relief against the transfer order dated 25th April, 1998 of the respondent No. 1. The petitioner had earlier challenged the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara in Regular Civil Suit No. 317 of 1998 dated 22nd June, 1998 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 277 of 1998. The learned Asstt. Judge, Vadodara has heard the matter and decided the same on 15th September, 1998 wherein the said appeal which has been filed by the petitioner-State has been rejected. Against that, the present Revision Application has been filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The respondent No. 1 working as a Police Inspector in D.C.B at Vadodara since 3rd January, 1997 is ordered to be transferred by the petitioner vide Ord...
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Suthar Vs. C.D. Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: (2002)1GLR109
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. This is landlord's revision under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act.2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision are as follows : The suit premises was let out by the landlord Revisionist to the tenant -respondent on monthly rent of Rs. 200/- besides taxes. The rent upto 31-12-1977 was paid, but the rent from 1-1-1978 to 30-11-1978 amounting to Rs. 2200/- and Rs. 69/- towards taxes fell due from the respondent. Notice of demand was served on 21-11-1978 which was served, but arrears of rent were not cleared within a month of service of notice of demand, hence suit for eviction was filed.3. The Suit was resisted on the ground that the disputed premises was let out initially at Rs. 170/- p.m., and the rent was enhanced thereafter to Rs. 180/- and then to Rs. 200/- p.m. He raised dispute of standard rent and pleaded that he has paid all the arrears of rent hence Suit was liable to be dismissed. He also filed Misc. Civil Application No. 27 of 1978 earlier for fixatio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »