Gujarat Court February 2000 Judgments
Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. Ballkhan D. Joya
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR933]; (2000)2GLR1522; (2000)IILLJ1116Guj
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India though styled as one under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution, at the instance of the Gujarat Electricity Board challenging the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Kalol in Reference (LCK) No. 22/86. 2. I am conscious of the limitations of this Court while dealing with petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein findings of fact recorded by the lower Courts on the basis of appreciation of evidence on record cannot lightly be interfered with. However, as I shall discuss hereinafter, there is no serious controversy as to the facts established on record, but the Labour Court has in interpreting the facts, added its own grossly exaggerated twist arising from its own compassionate view in the matter which has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. In my view, therefore, the impugned award requires to be interfered with. 3. The respondent worked with the petitioner for two ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramubhai Dahyabhai Rathod Vs. Surat Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Guj292; (2000)3GLR2679
ORDERK.M. Mehta, J.1. Shri Ramubhai Dahyabhai Rathod-Original plaintiff and petitioner in Civil Revision Application has filed this Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 1-12-99 passed by the learned Second Jt. District Judge, Surat in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 210/ 99. The learned Judge by this judgment has allowed the said appeal and set aside the order of injunction did. 5-10-1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division below Ex. 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 310/96 filed by the original plaintiff-petitioner herein.1. It may be noted that this matter was placed for admission before me. However, looking to the importance of the matter and urgency of the matter, I have heard the matter at the admission stage for final disposal of the matter and therefore I have allowed the learned counsel to address me on all questions of law and facts at length and I have heard the learned counsel, for the a...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary Vs. Rajubhai R. Jadeja
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR183
B.C. Patel, J.1. The petitioner - Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India - has filed this petition challenging the order made by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in O.A. No.533 of 1998 on 25.8.1998.2. The respondent No.1 herein, who was the applicant before the Tribunal, submitted that he was a casual labourer from 5.12.1983 and continued upto 11.3.1984. His services were terminated. Raising a contention that he had completed 240 days of service and his services were terminated in contravention of the Labour Laws, he raised disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Rajkot for conciliation. Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act points out the procedure and powers of conciliation officers, Boards, Courts and Tribunals. Sections 12 refers to duties of conciliation officers. It is the duty of the conciliation officer to bring about a settlement of the disput...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish B. Bhatt Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR45
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Whether the impugned order of premature retirement, dated 13-1-1989, and die resultant order dated 16-1-1989 are legal and valid or not is the question to be examined and answered by this Court in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner has challenged the order recorded by the respondent No. 2, dated 13-1-1989, retiring the petitioner at the premature age of 55 years from service, inter alia, contending that it is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was, originally, appointed as Sub-overseer (Soil Conservation), by the order, dated 4-4-1956, and he was posted under the establishment of the respondent No. 2. He was, also, promoted to the post of Agricultural Supervisor with effect from 1-1-1976. He worked as Agricultural Supervisor on various places till the year 1982. In 1983, the petitioner was sent on deputation under the establishment of respondent No....
Tag this Judgment!C.M. Oza Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR368
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The petitioner has questioned the decision of the respondent, as communicated to him, vide notification of the respondent No. 1, dated, 15-10-1986, cancelling the promotion order of the petitioner issued by notification of the respondent No. 1, dated 10-7-1973, by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. A few material and relevant, facts giving rise to the petition be stated, at the outset, to appreciate the merits of the petition and the challenge against it.3. The petitioner was, originally, appointed to the post of Junior Clerk in'Irrigation Department of the State of Gujarat, on, 15-3-1952. Later on, he came to be promoted as Senior Clerk, in the year 1954. He was further promoted to the post of Senior Accounts Clerk in the year 1958. From 21st October, 1963, the services of the petitioner came to be placed under the District Panchayat. At the relevant time, the petitioner was on deputation in the District Panchayat. The Government of...
Tag this Judgment!Brahmanand Layakram Vs. Shah Natwarlal Harakhlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1144
D.C. Srivastava, J. 1. This is tenant's revision under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act (for short 'the Act') against the concurrent Judgments and Decrees of the trial Court and the appellate Court directing dispossession of the revisionist from the disputed accommodation and also granting decree for arrears of rent, etc.2. The facts giving rise to this revision are shortly, as under : The disputed accommodation was let out to the revisionist on monthly rent of Rs. 25/-. The Rent from 1-11-1970 was not paid by the revisionist. Thus, upto 30-4-1976 more than six months rent remained due from the revisionist. Notice of demand was sent on 10-5-1976 which was served on the revisionist, but he failed to pay the rent. Allegation of nuisance was also made against the revisionist that he used to quarrel with his neighbours. Thus, on grounds of arrears of rent, nuisance and annoyance suit for eviction was filed against the revisionist.3. The revisionist appeared in the trial Court and after...
Tag this Judgment!Ninaben D. Chaudhary Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: (2000)2GLR558
A.M. Kapadia, J1. In this appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent the appellant herein has brought under challenge the judgment and order dated 29.12.1988 recorded by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 6950 of 1988 whereby the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the relief of issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order to quash the order setting aside the auction sale held in her favour on 13.12.1985 for plot No. 375-A/2 of Sector No. 28, Gandhinagar, passed by the Collector, Gandhinagar, District Gandhinagar, as confirmed by the State of Gujarat, is dismissed.2. The appellant is the original petitioner whereas the respondents are the original respondents. For the sake of convenience we propose to refer to the parties as 'the petitioner' and 'the respondents' in this judgment.3. Before highlighting the nature of controversy posed for our consideration in this appeal, it is necessary to nar...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Shanta Wd/O Shamalbhai and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ1980; 2001CriLJ2152; (2001)1GLR273
K.R. Vyas, J. 1. The appellants, by this appeal, have challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Himatnagar dated 31st January, 1979 rendered in Special Civil Suit No. 8 of 1974 dismissing the suit claiming Rs. 1 lac towards damages with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit. The suit was filed by the widow Bai Shanta and her two minor sons and the brother, mother and father of deceased Shamalbhai being appellants No. 1 to 6 respectively, claiming damages of Rs 1 lac on the death of Shamalbhai who died as a result of bullet injury at the hands of N.C.C. Cadets who were undergoing firing practice at the firing butts of police department at village Dhandha, 2 miles north to Himatnagar town. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant No. 5, mother of the deceased and the appellant No. 6 - Patel Nathabhai, the father of the deceased have expired. 2. It is the case of the appellants that on the firing butts, the cade...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jagdishchandra Kanchanlal Parikh and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-2000
Reported in: I(2002)ACC198; 2002ACJ198; (2001)1GLR634
D.C. Srivastava, J. 1. This appeal and the cross-objections of the claimants involve common question of law and facts, hence both are proposed to be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The appeal has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company who had insured the vehicle bearing truck No. GTE 8109. It was a goods vehicle insured with the appellant. The respondent No. 1 is the claimant. The vehicle bearing truck No. GTK 3727 is another vehicle which was involved in the incident. It was owned by the respondent No. 3 and was driven by the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 4 is the insurer of the said vehicle. Respondent No.5 is the driver of the vehicle GTE 8109 whereas respondent No. 6 was its cleaner and respondent No. 7 was its owner.3. It is not necessary for us to deal in detail the factual aspect of the case because the appeal of the appellant is based on limited point namely that the appellant is not liable under the terms of the insurance policy, under the terms of the motor p...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Prafullaben Dhirubhai Kanjiya Vs. Dhirubhai Kachrabhai Kanjiya
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Guj157; (2000)4GLR456
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Under the impugned order, the Court below granted interim maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 300/- p.m. in the suit filed by her for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The petitioner filed the suit in the Court below as an indigent person. It is really shocking and astonishing that the learned trial Court has not taken care of the provisions of Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. When a woman is entitled for free legal aid, I fail to see why this application is still pending. On the very first day, when this application has been placed before the Court, the Court should have immediately taken care and seen that the petitioner has been granted free legal aid and the requisite Court fees etc. are paid on the suit and the Advocate is also provided or where the Advocate appears in the application has given undertaking that he will not charge any fees from her, he should have been permitted. This...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »