Gujarat Court December 2000 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.
Rashmiben C. Bodani Vs. President, Adarsh Education Society and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-01-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1548
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The petitioner who was earlier employed as an Assistant Teacher in the Primary School run by the respondent-Trust and whose services were terminated on 30th April, 1979, challenges the decision of the Primary Education Tribunal dated 25-2-1992, rejecting her application No. 5 of 1992 on the ground that the application was not maintainable before the Tribunal since her services were terminated prior to the coming into force of the provisions of Section 40E of the Bombay Primary Education Act. The provisions of Section 40E laying down that the disputes between the manager and teacher of the nature referred to therein will be decided by the Tribunal constituted under Section 40E of the Act were added by Act No. 22 of 1986. published in G.G.G. Part-IV E034-2 dated 13-9-1986. The Tribunal also held that since this was not a suit or proceeding which was transferred from any civil Court under Section 40G(2) of the said Act, it could not entertain the same. 2. This matt...
Uma Small Scale Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Collector, Su ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-01-2000
Reported in: (2002)1GLR226
R.R. Tripathi, J. 1. The matter is being adjourned from time to time starting from 16-6-2000. At one stage, i.e. on 4-8-2000, it was given out by Mr. Y. N. Oza that he would like to file a Civil Application for bringing necessary amendment; then the matter was adjourned to 18-8-2000. Time was sought on behalf of Mr. Oza on 18-8-2000, whereupon as a last opportunity, the matter was adjourned to 25-8-2000. On 15-9-2000, arguments were heard in part, at which stage learned Assistant Government Pleader sought time to get instructions. Again on 17-11-2000, it was mentioned on behalf of learned Advocate for the petitioner that it was not convenient for him to go on with the matter on that day. With consent, it was adjourned to 1-12-2000.2. Today, when the matter is called out, it is given out that a letter was addressed to the present President of Uma Small Scale Industrial Co-operative Society Limited on 2-9-2000, a xerox copy of which is produced which is taken on record. It is also given ...
Uma Small Scale Industrial Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. Collector
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-01-2000
Reported in: (2002)1GLR226
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. 1. The matter is being adjourned from time to time starting from 16.6.2000.At one stage, i.e. on 4.8.2000, it was given out by Mr. Y.N. Oza that he would like to file a Civil Application for bringing necessary amendment; then the matter was adjourned to 18.8.2000. Time was sought on behalf of Mr.Oza on 18.8.2000, whereupon as a last opportunity, the matter was adjourned to 25.8.2000. On 15.9.2000, arguments were heard in part, at which stage learned Assistant Govt. Pleader sought time to get instructions. Again on 17.11.2000, it was mentioned on behalf of learned advocate for the petitioner that it was not convenient for him to go on with the matter on that day. With consent, it was adjourned to 1.12.2000.2. Today, when the matter is called out it is given out that a letter was addressed to the present President of Uma Small Scale Industrial Cooperative Society Limited on 2.9.2000, a xerox copy of which is produced which is taken on record. It is also given out tha...
Bai Sukhiben Vs. Hirabhai Haribhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-01-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3215
H.H. Mehta, J.1. The Original Complainant Bai Sukhiben wife of Patel Hirabhai, who was a complainant in Criminal Case No. 1012/85, which was pending on the file of the learned J.M.F.C., Lunawada, District Panchmahals (who will be referred to hereinafter as `the learned Magistrate') has, by seeking permission of this Court under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, (In short `Cr.P.C.') filed this present Criminal Appeal under Sec.371 read with Sec. 378 of the Cr.P.C. and challenged the legality and validity of the judgment Exh.84 of acquittal rendered by the learned Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 1012/85 on 16th January, 1990.2. Here in this appeal, the appellant was a complainant while respondents No. 1 to 5 were accused respectively in aforesaid Criminal Case No. 1012/85, and therefore, parties will be referred to hereinafter as complainant and respective accused respectively at appropriate places.3. The facts leading to this present Criminal Appeal in a nutshell are ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›