Gujarat Court February 2000 Judgments
Satdadhar Road Asargrastha Samiti Vs. Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipa ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Guj197
C.K. Thakkar, J. 1. This appeal is filed against dismissal of SCA No. 3973 of 1999 by the learned Single Judge on December 10, 1999.2. Appellant was original petitioner No. 1. The case of the appellant was that petitioner No. 1 was an Association formed for protecting interest of slum dwellers residing at Amraiwadi, Ahmedabad. The appellant was the convener of the said association. It was asserted by the appellant the appellant (Satadhar Road .Asargrastha Samitl) was looking after well being of its members. There were about 135 members who were residing on 60' Satadhar Society Road in Survey No. 88/1 of final plot No. 454 of TPS No. 27 of Amraiwadi. Since the road was to be widened, the members of the appellant association who claimed them selves to be tenants and lawful occupants of land, were asked to vacate the land on the ground that the land was required widening of road. The appellant replied to the Collector, Municipal Corporation and other authorities by filing representations ...
Tag this Judgment!Hasmukh Chaturbhuj Trivedi Vs. Mohanlal Ramji Voraliya
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-2000
Reported in: (2000)3GLR2568
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Present Revision Application has been filed by the original defendant of Rent Suit No. 86 of 1980. The respondent herein was the original plaintiff of the said suit and he filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioner tenant in the Court of Small Causes at Rajkot on the ground that the defendant is a tenant in arrears of rent for more than 6 months i.e., from 1-6-1970. The premises was let out to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. However, he has not paid the rent for 18 months, and therefore, he was served with a demand notice under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, still he did not pay the said rent. Ultimately, therefore, a suit was filed for getting a decree for possession. It was also stated in the suit that the defendant has made permanent construction in the suit premises in contravention of the terms of tenancy. Possession was also demanded on the ground of bona fide requirement of the plaintiff.2. The defendant resisted the suit by filing w...
Tag this Judgment!Chhani Nagar Panchayat and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)2GLR1263
C.K. Thakker, J.1. In these petitions, common questions of fact and law have been raised. It is, therefore, convenient to dispose of all the petitions by a common Judgment.2. For appreciating the contentions raised in the present group of petitions, the facts in a nutshell of the first matter, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 4663 of 1987 may now be stated.3. The said petition is filed by Chhani Nagar Panchayat (herein after referred to as 'Panchayat' for short) for an appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside Notifications at Annexure-A & B to the petition dated August 21, 1987 and for permanent injunction restraining the State of Gujarat-Respondent No. l from exercising power under Section 16 of the Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962; and for declaring certain Survey Numbers of Village Chhani as Notified Area under Chapter 26-A of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. A further prayer was made, restraining the respondent authorities from declaring the a...
Tag this Judgment!Amichandbhai Madhwan Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR287
A.L. Dave, J.1. In this Special Criminal Application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs :-'(a) to admit this petition; (b) to declare that the learned Board of Nominees, Palanpur is competent to lodge complaint under Section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the present respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 by issuing an appropriate writ, or order or direction; (c) to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or order or direction directing the respondent No. 1 to lodge the complaint against the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 for the offences punishable under Sees. 193, 208 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code; (d) pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this Special Criminal Application, direct the learned Board of Nominees, Palanpur to seize the record of Lavad Case No. 459 of 1990 and 460 of 1990 and further be pleased to direct the learned Board of Nominees, Palanpur to keep the ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish U. Nanavaty and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR520]; (2000)2GLR1703
R. M. Doshit, J.1. Mr. Mehta, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners informs that pending this petition, the petitioner No. 4 has passed away. Leave to delete the name of the petitioner No. 4. 2. The petitioners before this Court are all lecturers serving in the respondent No. 3 College, a Government Law College (hereinafter referred to as 'the College'), who claim a right to be continued in service even after expiry of the term of their appointment. Under order dated 4th August, 1989 made by the Deputy Director of Education, the petitioner No. 1 was appointed as a Lecturer in the College for the Academic Year 1989-90. His service was terminable without notice at the end of the academic year. The petitioner No. 2 was appointed as a Full-Time Lecturer in the College by the Acting Principal of the College under his order dated 4th August, 1989. The said appointment was for the academic year 1989-90 and was made terminable without notice at the end of the academic year. Simila...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavesh Gas Suppliers Vs. District Industries Centre and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Guj99
J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. Since both these petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raise identical and common questions, upon request, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners have invoked the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contending that the letter dated 13th January, 1999, and the earlier orders mentioned in this connection, dated 31-7-1998, are unreasonable, unjust and illegal and therefore, required to be quashed and the respondents be directed to hold the petitioners as eligible for cash subsidy under the scheme and the resultant grant of such subsidy, as provided under the Scheme. 3. The petitioners are proprietary firms engaged in the manufacture of industrial oxygen gas. The factory in each case was set up at Khakharia, Tal, Sihar, Dist. Bhavnagar, sometime in 1995. Since the facts are common in both the petitions, facts of first petition are highlighted so as to appreciate and examine the merits of ...
Tag this Judgment!Safiyaben Mohmed Sahid Ansari Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4453; II(2000)DMC494; (2000)3GLR863
A.L. Dave, J.1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, is the unfortunate wife of respondent No.2, who has been neglected by the husband after 22 years of married life on allegation of adultery, accepted by both, the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class as well as by Court of Sessions, in revision.2. The facts of the case, in a narrow compass, are, undisputedly, the petitioner and respondent No.2 were married about 22 years prior to 1994, according to Muslim rites. Out of the wedlock, the petitioner delivered four children (three of whom must be major by now). Respondent No.2 is working with Post and Telegraph Department, at Surendranagar and has been allotted a quarter at Block No.2. The parties hail from Bihar. One Abid Wahab, who happens to be cousin of both the parties, had come to Surendranagar. He had no other relatives at Surendranagar and he had, initially, stayed with the couple and, thereafter, used to visit this couple often. The human relations, strange as they...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikhup Agarwal Vs. Lilaben Laljibhai Vala and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-09-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1571
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. This is an appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhavnagar (Guj.) dated 24.9.1996, awarding a sum of Rs. 6,40,000 as compensation together with interest at the rate of 15 per cent from the date of application till realisation with proportionate costs.2. Mr. A.R. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shirish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent have been heard on admission of this appeal as well as its final hearing. The appeal is admitted. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is finally disposed of without summoning the record.3. Deceased Laljibhai was a driver in Bhavnagar Jilla Sahakari Bank Ltd. and had served there for the last 15 years. On the date of accident, he was driving an Ambassador car No. GJ 4-9528 and was coming towards Ahmedabad. He was driving the car slowly and carefully. When he reached between Bhandhuka and Bago-dara, one oil tanker No. GJ 10-T 7952 was coming from behind. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Apurva J. Parekh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(69)ECC786
1. Petitioner being aggrieved by an order passed on 8.1.1999 in two different sets of declarations has moved this court. The declarations filed under the provision containing the Kar Vivad Sarnadhan Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'Scheme') came to be rejected on the ground that the request for settlement of penalty is not covered under the scheme as amount of penalty was not determined on 31.3.1998 as per definition of the words 'tax arrear' as per Section 87(m)(ii)(a) of the Finance Act, 1998. The facts, briefly, required to be considered for the disposal of these petitions are as under : 2. M/s. ESSEN Peripherals Ltd., and M/s. ESSEN Computer Ltd., having their manufacturing activity at Gandhinagar were subjected to the proceedings under the provisions contained in Central Excise Act. After detailed investigation, show cause notices were served upon the petitioners. By a show cause notice at 14.7.92, M/s. ESSEN Peripheral Ltd. was called upon to show cause to Collector of Central...
Tag this Judgment!Chetan Y. Vora Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(70)ECC173
1. These petitions are arising out of one common adjudication order and hence, both these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Petitioners who were the directors of the Company known as M/s. V. P. Polycon Ltd., have preferred these applications, being aggrieved by an order made by respondent no. 2 on 15.2.1999, the copy of which is placed on record at pages 66 and 67. By the said order, the application submitted under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme') were rejected. 3. Short facts which emerges from records are as under :- 4. M/s. V. P. Polycon Ltd., a ., under the provision of Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rule 1944 read with proviso to Section 11(A)(1) of the Central Excise Act 1944, Petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 2940/99 was directed to pay the penalty in the sum of Rs. 5 lacs under Rule 209(a) of the Central Excise Rules 1944, while Shri Sohanlal Agarwal the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 2941/99 was ord...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »