Gujarat Court February 2000 Judgments
Mansingbhai Kahalsingbhai and ors. Vs. Surat Municipal Corporation and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)2GLR1061
ORDER16.1 At this stage, Mr. Mangukia, learned Advocate for the petitioners requested the Court to extend the status quo order which was granted earlier by this Court for some time as he wants to prefer an appeal against this judgment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the status quo order granted earlier is ordered to continue upto 21-2-2000 on condition that the petitioners will also maintain status quo and will not induct any new person in the premises nor allot the premises to any one....
Tag this Judgment!Sushila Kanwar Poonam Kunwar and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Guj194; (2000)3GLR2359
ORDERR.K. Abichandani, J.1. Notice. Service of Notice is waived by Mr.V. B. Gharaniya, the learned Asst. Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3. The petitioners seek a declaration that they as enunchs are entitled to practise the occupation of receiving alms/gifts from the public and are free to move anywhere for the practise of such occupation. A declaration is also sought that the action of the respondent authorities restraining the petitioners from receiving alms is illegal and unconstitutional. A further direction is sought that investigation into the offences which are alleged against the respondent No. 4 who is President of Nanpura Hijda Samaj, Surat may be made by the Police Authorities.2. According to the petitioners, they were forcibly converted into enunchs by the Head of the Principal Seat i.e. respondent No. 4 They have been residing at Hijdavad and paying money to the Head of the Seat by collecting alms (described as voluntary pleasure gifts) from Public on go...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaykumar Gordhandas Vikani Vs. Gujarat Agricultural University
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Guj199
ORDERR.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the entrance test held for admission to M.Sc. Course of the Gujarat Agricultural University.2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had scored 73% of marks at B.Sc. Examination and it is only because of the entrance test that he could not secure admission because he could get only 43% marks. It is contended that the entrance test prescribed by the University is not warranted and is unconstitutional and therefore the petitioner ought to be admitted to the M.Sc. Course irrespective of the result of the entrance test on the basis of his performance at the B.Sc. examination. The contention is thoroughly misconceived. The admission rules and regulations are framed in consonance with the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural University Act, 1969 and the admission requirements and the mode of admission have been laid down in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the regulations. Accordingly, a candidate for admission to...
Tag this Judgment!Mulla Faizal @ Fazilabanu Suleman Ibrahim Vs. State of Gujarat and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: (2000)2GLR1553
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J.1. The facts of this case are extraordinary, calling for grant of extraordinary relief and directions in favour of the appellant. The appellant claims change of entry regarding his sex in the Register of Births maintained under the provisions of Registration of Births & Deaths Act, 1969. The appellant's application for change of entry in the Register of Births regarding his sex having not been granted by the concerned authority, respondent No. 3, District Registrar (Births & Deaths) and Chief District Health Officer, the appellant approached this Court by filing a Special Civil Application, which has been dismissed by the learned single Judge summarily by order dated 17-2-1999 on the ground that the appropriate remedy for the appellant is filing of a civil suit for declaration in the competent Civil Court.2. The appellant was born on 28-4-1976 at Umarwada in a rural area of Ankkshwar Taluka. According to the appellant, when he was born, the parents of the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Murtujakhan Akbarkhan Pathan Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4101
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 15.1.2000 passed by the State Government rejecting the appeal of the petitioner and confirming the order dated 13.7.1998 of the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad, rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of licence under Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959.2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the District Magistrate had rejected the petitioner's application under the provisions of Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959. It was contended that the petitioner's application was not for any prohibited arms and therefore the application could not have been rejected under that provision. It was also contended that the petitioner was not a person prohibited from acquiring the arms or a person of unsound mind. It was also submitted that the petitioner was entitled to grant of licence because the arms in question earlier belonged to his father on whose demise he has inherited them. It was submitted that even t...
Tag this Judgment!Parle International Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-15-2000
Reported in: 2001(127)ELT329(Guj); (2000)3GLR2473
ORDERB.C. Patel, J.1. The petitioner, by filing this petition has prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside show cause notices at Annexures 'N', 'D' and 'P'. 2. The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture of non-alcoholic beverage base, was subjected to the excise duty under heading 33.02 of Central Excise Tariff for a period from 1-3-1989 to November, 1993. The petitioner was paying excise duty for which there is no dispute. It is also clear that the duty paid was accepted by the Revenue. However, show cause notice was issued on 30-3-1994 calling upon the petitioner to pay the differential amount of central excise duty of Rs. 2,68,29,433.15 as basic excise duty and Rs. 18,61,396.53 as special excise duty totaling to Rs. 2,86,90,828.68 leviable on the clearance of non-alcoholic beverage base units during the period mentioned earlier under provisions contained in section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act...
Tag this Judgment!Executive Engineer Vs. Pravinbhai Prabhubhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-15-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ1403; (2000)3GLR291
M.R. Calla, J.1. The facts giving rise to the present Appeals are as under:-The claimant Pravinbhai, aged 21 years at the relevant time, was working as an employee (daily wager) for a sum of Rs. 14/- per day at Magdalla Port under the concerned Executive Engineer. His case is that on 12.1.82 at about 6.0 P.M. while he was being taken in a truck of the Port (registered in the name of the Executive Engineer of the said Port) he sustained fractures of tibia and fibula of both the legs. It has been stated that the driver Fatehsingbhai was driving the truck in a high speed. On account of sudden application of the brake, the plate of the diesel pump, which was loaded in the truck moved and dashed against his both the legs resulting into the fractures, as aforesaid. It is the case of the claimant Pravinbhai that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. On account of the injuries, as aforesaid, he was taken to the Civil Hospital, Surat where he remained as an indoor patient. ...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajiben and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-15-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ404
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. The fact giving rise to this appeal and cross-objections can briefly be narrated as under:One Rajiben, the widow of Sendhabhai Lavjibhai Chaudhari filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 106 of 1980 claiming compensation for death of her husband Sendhabhai. The deceased hired Matador No. GTF 4051 for going to Ahmedabad for purchasing one electric motor from Ahmedabad which was to be installed in the well situated in the field of the deceased. The accident took place on 9.10.79 when Sendhabhai was returning from Ahmedabad along with electric motor on the hired Matador at about 6.30 a.m. The deceased was sitting along with the driver in the driver's cabin of the Matador. The owner of the Matador was also in the said vehicle. Amrutpuri Hirapuri Goswami was driving the Matador. The two camel carts were proceeding on the National Highway from Baliasan towards Mehsana. It was alleged that the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and dashed with the said...
Tag this Judgment!Nilabhai Rupabhai Patel, Chief Promoter of Proposal Vs. Proposed Hadta ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-15-2000
Reported in: (2000)2GLR1617
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 27-1-1999 passed by the revisional authority under Section 155 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, by which the appellate order dated 12-10-1998 was set aside and the resolution of the District Panchayat dated 29-6-1998 was restored.2. By the Resolution No. 64 dated 29-6-1998 the respondent No. 5 proposed-society was registered under the provisions of Section 9 of the said Act and the application of the petitioner for such registration was rejected. The petitioner had preferred Appeal No. 99 of 1998 under Section 153 of the said Act against that Resolution and the Additional Registrar (Appeal) set aside the resolution on the ground that it was passed without hearing the parties and then the decision ought to be taken on merits after hearing the parties. It was also found that the subject was not on the agenda and it was taken up at the instance of the Chairman. This order of remand was challenged by th...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Secondary Education Board and anr. Vs. Sunny Dharampalsingh Ch ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Guj200; (2001)1GLR28
D.M. Dharmauhikari, C.J. 1. The present judgment in these Letters Patent Appeals shall dispose of the above two groups of Letters Patent Appeals, which are between the same parties on the same subject-matter. The appeals have been preferred by the Gujarat Secondary Education Board against the order of the learned single Judges of this Court, whereby its disciplinary action against the two students, viz., Chopra Sushant Shantichand and Chaudhary Sunny Dharampalsingh, of cancelling their one academic examination for use of unfair means in the examination hall has been set aside.2. The abovenamed students, whose Std. X examination conducted by the Gujarat Secondary Education Board had been cancelled, approached this Court by preferring Special Civil Application Nos. 4045 of 1999 and 4686 of 1999 and a learned single Judge (Coram : M. R. Calla, J.), by judgment dated 21-7-1999 and 23-7-1999 [reported in Sunny Dharampalsingh Chaudhary v. Gujarat Secondary Education Board, 2000 (1) GCD 446 :...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »