Gujarat Court February 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.
M.N. Parmar Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3543
R.M. Doshit, J.1. Heard the learned advocates.2. The petitioner before this court was appointed as an Armed Police Constable in or around the year 1980. In the year 1984, he had asked for casual leave for three days with effect from 9th May, 1984 after office hours. On expiry of the period of leave, he was supposed to report for duty on 15th May, 1984, however, he failed to do so and did not report for duty till 27th March, 1985, and until after a notice under section 145 of the Bombay Police Act was issued to him. After reporting for duty, he produced a medical certificate for part of the period he was absent from service. The period of his absence i.e. 316 days was later on regularised as leave without pay. On 23rd September, 1988, a chargesheet was issued upon the petitioner in respect of his absence of 316 days without leave. The said chargesheet was replied to by the petitioner. Since he did not admit his guilt, the disciplinary action was initiated against him. In course of the d...
Bhavani Shankar Kripaldas Maheshwari Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)2GLR1117
1. Rule. Service of rule is waived by Ms. B.R. Gajjar, ld. APP for the State.The petitioner herein seeks his release on bail during pendency of this appeal by virtue of S. 389 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. By order dated December 20, 1999 notice came to be issued for the purpose of enabling the State Government to canvass any case for not releasing the present petitioner on bail during the pendency of criminal appeal no. 358 of 1993. The State has not presented any such case except that the petitioner has actually undergone 9 years and 3 months of sentence out of the life sentence awarded to him and that he has yet not completed 11 years of sentence as per one of the categories to be noticed in order dated 29.7.1999 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : J.N. Bhatt and H.R. Shelat, JJ) in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2418 of 1999. That submission on behalf of the State has been replied by saying that remission of two years which the petitioner earned p...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chandanben Rajibhai Solanki and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-02-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ1025; (2001)1GLR427
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. These 4 cases involving common questions of law and fact are proposed to be disposed of by a common judgment.2. Matador No. GTK 4711 used for transport business was being driven by the owner-cum-driver respondent No. 1. On 21-3-1983 while this vehicle was being driven by the respondent No. 1, three passengers along with their luggage were being carried in the said vehicle. They were Raijibhai Jethabhai Sotanki, Fatesing Dhulsing and Somabhai Punjabhai Padhiar. It was alleged that the matador was being driven rashly and negligently with excessive speed and the vehicle was not under the control of the respondent No. 1 on Padra-Jambusar Road near Village Mahuvad, a buffalo suddenly appeared on the road. The driver respondent No. 1 could not control the matador and dashed with the buffalo, as a result of which the matador turned turtle on the road. Out of the three passengers, Raijibhai Jethabhai Solanki and Fatesing Dhulsing died on the spot and third passenger Somab...
Gruh Finance Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-02-2000
Reported in: (2000)161CTR(Guj)100; [2000]243ITR482(Guj)
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. In this group of three petitions, at the stage of show-cause notice, the petitioners-assessees, have invoked extraordinary, plenary, equitable and discretionary jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, a common question has surfaced for our consideration and adjudication i.e., whether in exercise of powers by the respondent authority, for reassessment and resultant notices under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 to the petitioners, at this stage, prima facie, could be said to be passed on 'change of opinion' or on new opinion on finding out mistake upon the existing material or could it be said that there is total lack of jurisdiction 2. The case of the petitioner in each petition is that the impugned notice is without jurisdiction, as reassessment cannot be made on the basis of 'change of opinion' since all the relevant facts and entire material had been considered by the AO at the relevant time. Whereas, Revenue has contended that assessee has...
Heirs of Sunderlal S. Bhaiya Vs. Gujarati Mochi Niat Panch Samsta Dabh ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-02-2000
Reported in: (2000)2GLR463
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Unsuccessful defendant original tenant has knocked the doors of this court by invoking revisional jurisdiction under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The facts of the present revision application are as under:Present petitioner is the original defendant against whom the opponent plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit No.. 54 of 1979 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (JD), Dabhoi. The plaintiff had filed the said suit for getting a decree for possession of the rented premises which was let out to the defendant-tenant on the ground that the defendant has failed to pay up the arrears of rent in spite of notice of demand. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the owner of a house bearing Municipal Census No.58 situated at Dabhoi Kasaba. On 25.11.1961 the southern portion of the suit premises was let out to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs. 7/-. Subsequently the second room of the house was also let o...
Gruh Finance Ltd. Vs. Joint Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-02-2000
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN196(Guj)
J.N. Bhatt, J.In this group of three petitions, at the stage of show-cause notice, the petitioners-assessees, have invoked the extraordinary, plenary, equitable and discretionary jurisdictions of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. A common question has surfaced for our consideration and adjudication, i.e., whether the exercise of powers by the respondent authority, for reassessment and resultant notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the petitioners, at this stage, prima facie could be said to be based on 'change of opinion' or on new opinion on finding out mistake upon the existing material or could it be said that there is total lack of jurisdiction 2. The case of the petitioner in each petition is that the impugned notice is without jurisdiction, as reassessment cannot be made on the basis of 'change of opinion' since all the relevant facts and entire material had been considered by the assessing of...
Dilip M. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-01-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR327
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Learned Advocate Shri B. A. Vaishnav appears on behalf of the petitioner and learned AGP Shri M. A. Pancholi is appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 29.4.1986 passed by the respondent No. 2 and to grant the pay scale of Rs. 650 to Rs. 1040/- given to the degree holder in Mechanical Engineering form the date of his having obtained degree in Mechanical Engineering with arrears of salary and interest 12% p.a. According to the case of the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed through direct selection as an Assistant Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering vide an appointment letter date 15.2.1983. The petitioner had joined his duties on 24.2.1983 pursuant to said appointment letter which is at Annexure A. According to the terms of appointment order, the petitioner was appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 550 to Rs. 900/- on permanent basis as a direct recruit, prior to this, the petitioner was...
Pragji Anandji Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-01-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3453
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Rule. Ms. H.B. Punani has already put appearance for the respondents, office needs not to issue notice of the rule.2. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the Special Criminal Application.3. The petitioner aged 70 years - convict of the offence under section 302 of the IPC at Sabarmati Central Prison, Ahmedabad challenges the order of the Superintendent, Ahmedabad Central Prison dated 20.12.1999 under which for late surrendering by 14 days, he was punished.4. Facts are that, on 21.11.1998 parole leave was granted to the petitioner and he has to surrender after 20 days. His parole leave was extended for 10 days by the competent authority under the order dated 10.12.1998 and he has to surrender on 22.12.1998, but he surrendered on 5.1.1999, that is, late by 14 days. He was punished by penalty of forfeiture of furlough leave and cash deposite. That order has been challenged.5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that, against that order the a...
ishwarbhai H. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-01-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR277
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Mr.Niraj Ashar, Learned Advocate appearing for Sr. Advocate Mr.P.M.Thakkar on behalf of the petitioner. Learned AGP Mr.V.M.Pancholi appears for M/s. Patel Advocates on behalf of the respondent no.1 and 2. The respondent no.3 is served but none is appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3.2. In the present petition, according to the petitioner he was initially appointed by the respondents by an order dated 2.3.1981 as a Jr.Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.260 to Rs.400/- and was posted at Mahesana under the Director of Accounts and Treasury. Thereafter the petitioner was transferred to Unja District Mahesana on request in the month of May, 1981. During the employment, the petitioner had received 2 chargesheets for some alleged irregularities in his duties, wherein the respondent no.3 ultimately by an order dated 16.4.86 imposed penalty by way of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by withholding one increment for one year with future effect and in respect to t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›