Gujarat Court March 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.
Ramniklal B. Shulka Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-06-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Guj234
ORDERC.K. Thakkar, J.1. Rule. Ms. P.J. Dawawala appears and waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 1-Union of India and Mr. M.A. Bukhari, AGP appears and waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. This petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents authorities to grant Freedom Fighters' Pension to the petitioner who had undergone jail sentence during the Freedom Fighters' Movement. It appears that, earlier, the petitioner filed a petition, being Special Civil Application No. 5142 of 1994 which came up for final hearing before a single Judge of this Court. It was allowed by a judgment and order dated March 12, 1998 and the following order was passed.'..... .I accordingly allow this petition.Respondents shall consider the petitioner's application made on 24th June, 1985 keeping in view the advertisement da...
Ranchhodji C. Chauhan Vs. District Panchayat, Through D.D.O. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)3GLR2502; (2001)IIILLJ829Guj
C.K. Thakker, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated September 17, 1973 at Annexure 'A' to the petition as also the award, Annexure 'B' dated June 15, 1987 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Special Labour Court, Ahmedabad.2. The case of the petitioner was that he was appointed as work- charged Karkun by the District Panchayat, Banaskantha, respondent No. 1 and was working since February 5, 1973. Vide an order dated September 17, 1973, his services were terminated without issuing any notice, calling for his explanation and observing principles of natural justice.3. Being aggrieved by the order, he approached the Labour Court and the Labour Court, by the impugned order did not grant relief though it held that the petitioner was serving with the respondent-Panchayat and that his services were terminated. The Labour Court, however, observed that in case respondent No. I will make new recruitm...
Mahendrasinhji Zoravarsinhji Sandhu Vs. Kamal B. Deval
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR89
M.R. Calla, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15th June 1996 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kachchh at Bhuj in Special Civil Suit No.33 of 1983.2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:The appellant and respondent no.1 were managing the business of M/s. Devpal Hydrocarbons and Devpal Hydro Agencies for and on behalf of sole proprietor Smt. Prakashkunvarba respondent no.2 herein who was an authorised agent for Indane Gas at Bhuj-Kachchh. A dispute arose between the appellant and respondent no.1 and an arbitration agreement was entered into on 1st October 1982 between the present appellant and respondent no.1, respondent no.1 being the first part and the appellant being the second part. The dispute between the parties was in respect of the mutual dealings for the period 1973-74 to 31st October 1982 with regard to the business carried on as above to settle the goodwill and to settle the accounts for the period 1973-74 to 31st October 1982,...
Raj Remedies Vs. Richardson Vicks Inc.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)3GLR2323
M.R. Calla, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 6th April 1999 passed by the Judge, Court No.XVI, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad.2. The respondents nos.1 and 2 herein (orig. plaintiffs) filed Regular Civil Suit No.855 of 1999 before the City Civil Court, at Ahmedabad along with an application for temporary injunction, in the following terms:'(A) That the defendants by itself, its partners, servants, agents, dealers, distributors and assignees be restrained by an order of temporary injunction of this Hon'ble Court till final disposal of this suit, from infringing the plaintiffs' Trade Mark 'VICKS' by use of the Trade Mark 'VIKAS' or any other marks similar to the plaintiffs' Trade Mark 'VICKS'.(B) That the defendants by itself, its partners, servants, agents, dealers, distributors and assignees be restrained by an order of temporary injunction of this Hon'ble Court till the final disposal of this suit from infringing the plaintiffs' Copy Right in the artistic work in labe...
Hargovan Keshav Vs. Mansing Thakorbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)3GLR183
K.R. Vyas, J.1. The appellant-defendant no.4 of Special Civil Suit No. 63 of 1971 has challenged the judgment and decree dated 29th December 1978 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Surat, declaring that survey no. 393 of Mota Village admeasuring 1 Acre 2 Gunthas, Gamtal Tukda No. 28 of Mota Village admeasuring 6 Gunthas and Building No. 3/121 of Mota village and building No. 3/122 of Mota village are the joint family properties of families consisting of plaintiff no.2 Mansing Thakor, plaintiff no.3 Manilal Thakor (respondents no. 1 and 2 herein), defendant no.2 Magan Bhikha Kara and defendant no.3 Bhagatsing Magan Bhikha, respondents no. 5 and 6 herein. The learned trial judge further held that the plaintiff Mansing Thakor and Manilal Thakor are jointly entitled to 1/2 share from the said properties and defendants Bhagatsing Magan and Magan Bhikha are jointly entitled to 1/2 share from the said properties. The learned trial judge, therefore, declared that the appellant...
Kantilal Nanchand Sheth Vs. Jeramdas Vajubhai Parmar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR348
D.C. Srivastava, J.,1. This is landlord's revision under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') challenging the non-concurrent judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court. The respondent - tenant has been served, but neither he is present nor any counsel has been engaged by him. As such Shri Mehul S. Shah for the revisionist has been heard and the Judgments of the two courts below and the relevant materials on record were examined.2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision are as under : The demised property consisting of one room on the ground floor and two rooms on the first floor were let out by the revisionist to the respondent on monthly rent of Rs.45/-. In the plaint it was stated that this was also the standard rent, but in the notice of demand it was not mentioned that this was the standard rent, rather it was stated in the notice that it was contractual rate of rent. In addition to this, under the Agreement the respondent was to pay Rs.3/- per...
Dahyabhai K. Patel Vs. Gsrtc
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3668
R.R. Tripathi, J.1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the action of the respondent, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation ('the Corporation' for brevity) for initiating and holding departmental inquiry against the petitioner and continuing the same even after the honourable acquittal of the petitioner on merits in Criminal Case No.254 of 1987. The challenge is mainly based on the action being arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and in violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights.2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Shri Hardik Raval appearing for the Corporation pointed out that it is true that the petitioner was acquitted in Criminal Case No.254 of 1987, but at the same time, the Corporation is held liable to pay an amount of compensation of Rs.3,07,000/- with cost and interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from 24.4.1987 till the amount is deposited in the Court in Claim Case No.400 of 1987 and also in Claim Case No.559 of 1987. The Corporati...
B.R. Kakar Vs. Institute for Plasma Research
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR618
R.M. Doshit, J.1. Heard the learned advocates. With the consent of the learned advocates, the petition is heard and finally disposed of.2. The petitioner before this Court is the Chief Administrative Officer in the Institute of Plasma Research, the respondent no. 1 herein [hereinafter referred to as `the Institute']. The respondent no. 2 is the Chairman of the Governing Council of the Institute and the respondent no. 3 is the Director in the Institute. The petitioner challenges the validity of the Order dated 31st August, 1999 made by the Director whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension.3. It is contended that the petitioner is the Chief Administrative Officer in the Institute and the Governing Council of the Institute is the appointing authority. The management and the administration of the Institute is governed by the Bye-laws made in that behalf. The said Bye-laws do not confer power upon the Institute or any of its officers to suspend any of its employees; except ot...
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Vs. Micro Forge (India) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-02-2000
Reported in: [2001]104CompCas533(Guj); (2000)2GLR1594
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Admit. Service of notice is waived by the learned advocate S. N. Soparkar in O.J. Appeal No. 1 of 2000 and the learned advocate Mr. Kavina in O.J. Appeal No. 5 of 2000. In view of the facts and circumstances and at the request of learned counsel appearing for the parties, both the appeals are ordered to be heard and disposed of finally, by this common judgment. 2. Whether the order of the learned company judge, exercising his powers under section 433(e) admitting and directing for advertisement in a winding up petition, at the instance of the original petitioning company, Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited, is vulnerable, assailable, unreasonable and unjust or not is the heart and substratum of this group of two appeals, wherein, common questions are involved against the common order, and upon request, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Obviously, first it would prompt us to articulate and highlight the relevant and important factual aspects which ...
Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation Vs. Kumar G. Mehta and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-02-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR830]; (2000)3GLR2250; (2001)ILLJ823Guj
B.C. Patel, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 5435 of 1986 on 11-2-1999, the original respondent No. 2 Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation has preferred this appeal. 2. From the facts set out in the petition it appears that the president of the union has filed the petition representing the case of safai Kamdars working with the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 Gujarat Housing Board is constituted under the Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1961. It is necessary to consider the Statement of Objects & Reasons of the Act, which are as under : 'The operation of Gujarat Housing Board being restricted within the limits of a city as constituted under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, and a Municipal Borough or noticed area as constituted under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, where on account of rapid urbanisation vacant land has become scarce, the work of the construction of houses by the Board has gradually...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »