Gujarat Court April 2000 Judgments
Janakrai L. Chhaya Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR3007
C.K. Thakkar, J. 1. Both these petitions are filed by the same petitioner and the questions raised in both of them are also inter-related. It is, therefore, convenient to dispose of both the petitions by a common judgment.2. SCA No. 5598 of 1989 is filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the order dated 13th June, 1989 by which the petitioner was reverted from the post of Sanitary Inspector to the post of Vaccinator, and a consequential order, dated 21st June, 1989 and for a declaration that he was exempted from passing Sanitary Inspector's Examination and was entitled to promotion as Sanitary Inspector without passing such examination. A prayer is also made to direct the respondent authorities to promote the petitioner as Sanitary Inspector and to grant all consequential benefits including arrears of pay, seniority, etc.3. SCA No. 3224 of 1992 is filed for a declaration that the respondent authorities were bound to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Setalvad Brothers Vs. N.T. Doria, Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-2000
Reported in: [2000]245ITR565(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J.1. Rule. Learned advocate Shri M. R. Bhatt waives service of rule for the respondent. At the request of the learned advocates, and looking to the facts of the case, the petition is finally heard today. 2. We have heard learned advocate Shri Puj appearing for the petitioner and learned advocate Shri B. B. Naik along with learned advocate Shri M. R. Bhatt for the respondent. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance regarding non-issuance of a certificate under s. 230A(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner had sold plots Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of sub-plot No. A of R.S. No. 257 situated at village Nagalpur, Highway, Mahsana, to Sakar Owners Association for a consideration of Rs. 23 lacs. For getting the sale deed registered it was necessary for the petitioner to obtain necessary certificate from the respondent authority under the provisions of s. 230A(1) of the Act. When the petitioner had submitted an application for the re...
Tag this Judgment!Setalvad Bros. Vs. N. J. Doria
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-2000
Reported in: [2000]110TAXMAN434(Guj)
Dave, J. RuleThe learned advocate Shri M.R. Bhatt waives service of rule for the respondent. At the request of the learned advocates, and looking to the facts of the case, the petition is finally heard today.2. We have heard learned advocate Shri Puj appearing for the petitioner and the learned advocate Shri B.B. Naik along with learned advocate Shri M.R. Bhatt for the respondent.3. The petitioner has approached this court with a grievance regarding non-issuance of a certificate under section 230A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner had sold plots Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the Sub-Plot No. A of R.S. No. 257 situated at village Nagalpur, Highway, Melisana, to Sakar Owners Association for a consideration of Rs. 23 lacs. For getting the sale deed registered it was necessary for the petitioner to obtain necessary certificate from the respondent authority under the provisions of section 230A(1) of the Act. When the petitioner had submitted an appli...
Tag this Judgment!Yogesh V. Brahmbhatt Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3022
Thakker, J.1. Two practising advocates have approached this Court by way of Public Interest Litigation ('PIL') on the basis of a newspaper report appeared in the Times of India (daily) dated October 14, 1999 wherein it was inter alia stated that a female leopard was nabbed from village Vankuva near Asha Forest in Vadodara district. On 20th October, 1999 , in Gujarati vernacular newspaper `Gujarat Samachar', it was further reported that a female leopard had refused to take food and was starving on account of harassment, torture and trauma inflicted upon her.2. It was the case of the petitioners that on coming to know about the aforesaid news, both of them went to Indroda Park, Gandhinagar on the same day where the female leopard was kept and found that she was left isolated in a cage without any attention or medical treatment. At about 3 p.m. both the petitioners went to Vankuva to collect necessary facts pertaining to capturing of the animal and they found that capturing effected was t...
Tag this Judgment!Dinubhai Motiram Vyas and ors. Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Guj229; (2000)3GLR2256
ORDERR.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioners who are the Managers of two Cinema theatres, have challenged the validity of Rule 126 of the Bombay Cinema Rules 1954, on the ground that it violates the fundamental right of the petitioners under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. They have also challenged the orders of the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, made on 30th August, 1982, as per Annexure 'F' and 'G' to the petition, rejecting their application for permission to have 'pan beedi gallas' in the premises of these two cinema theatres.2. Rule 126 of the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954 provides that no cinema premises shall be used for any purpose other than the exhibition of Cinematograph films except with a previous permission in writing of the Licensing Authority. According to the petitioners, the words 'cinema premises' in Rule 126 refer to the building and not to the land surrounding the building. Therefore, the provisions would not apply to pan-beedi gallas which ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Urmila J. Sangani Vs. Pragjibhai Mohanlal Luvana and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-2000
Reported in: 2000ACJ1125; AIR2000Guj211; (2000)2GLR1281
Panchal, J. 1. This First Appeal has been placed before the Larger Bench in view of an order of reference made by the learned Single Judge on January 19, 1996.2. In order to understand the scope of the reference, it would be necessary to notice the facts of the case in brief which are as under :The appellant was travelling on June 15, 1986 in luxury bus bearing registration No. GRP-3586 and was going from Bombay to Junagadh. When the bus reached near Vadtal Chokdi on Ahmedabad-Bombay Highway, the bus driver noticed a truck lying in front of the bus. He, therefore, after giving signal, started overtaking the truck and at that time, a public carrier bearing registration No. GTW-4156 owned by the respondent No. 4 and driven by its driver came with full speed from opposite direction and dashed with the right hand side of the bus. As a result of the accident, the appellant was injured. Therefore, she filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 before the Motor...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Datta Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR462]; (2001)IILLJ235Guj
D.H. Waghela, J.1. These Miscellaneous Criminal Applications are filed by the same petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaints and the process issued pursuant thereto in Criminal Cases Nos. 193, 194, 195 and 196 of 1990 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gandhidham. The original complaints, identical except for the name of the worker involved, are filed by the Factory Inspector, Adipur, on the basis of his inspection visit to the factory of the company situated in Kandla Free Trade Zone, Gandhidham. The petitioner was the Vice-Chairman of the company at the relevant time and he was admittedly the 'occupier' under the Factories Act, 1948 (the Act, for short) of the aforesaid factory of the company. The original complaints are filed in an identical pre-printed form by filling the blanks, wherein it is alleged that, at the time of visit on October 17, 1989 at 6.00 p.m., a workman in Group 'C' was found to be working ...
Tag this Judgment!Azim Hashan Premji Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)3GLR400
D.H. Waghela, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prays quashing of the proceedings in Criminal Case No.6 of 1990 pending in the Court of the learned 5th Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Bhavnagar wherein processes are ordered to be issued to the seven accused, including the five petitioners. The original accused No.1 is the company of which the present petitioners are directors and the accused No.7 is the factory manager. The accused No.1 company and the accused No.7 factory manager have not filed any petition for quashing, but are joined as respondents No.4 and 5 in the present petition.2. It is the case of the petitioners that the company has nominated, constituted and appointed, for its Division at Bhavnagar, the attorney of the company to do, perform and execute for and on behalf of the company the acts, deeds and things as specified in the power of attorney. They had obtained, for its factory at Bhavnagar, the consent under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Star Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR358
B.C. Patel, J.1. The petitioner being aggrieved by an order made by Joint Industries Commissioner dated 4/3/1986 has filed this petition with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to entertain the application of the petitioner company for grant of Cash Subsidy.2. The relevant facts which are required to be considered for disposal of this petition are as under.3. The petitioner No.1 - Star Laminates Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in manufacture of decorative and industrial laminated sheets. In view of the policy known as Cash Subsidy annexed to the petition at Annexure-A (Resolution of Government of Gujarat, Industries, Mines and Power Department dated 22/12/1977), the petitioner approached respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by making an application at Annexure-B/1 on 21/10/1982 for Cash Subsidy on the ground that the petitioner-company has purchased standby unit and is entitled to Cash Subsidy. From the record, Mr.S.N.Thakkar, Learned Advocate appearing for Mr.Nanavati for the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Controller Vs. Amarsinh K. Damor
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR495
H.K. Rathod, J.1. By filing the petition being special civil application no. 10565 of 1999, the petitioner corporation [hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'] has challenged the impugned order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Approval Application no. 217 of 1996 in Reference IT No. 64 of 1996 dated 28.6.1996 whereby, the tribunal has rejected the approval application. By filing the special civil application no. 10263 of 1999, the petitioner-workman [hereinafter referred to as 'the workman'] has prayed for a direction to the corporation to implement the orders passed by the tribunal in the aforesaid reference by reinstating the workman in service with full back wages for intervening period. Therefore, since both the petitions are arising from the order passed by the tribunal in aforesaid Reference and since the subject matter of both the petitions is one and the same, both the petitions are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Rule in both...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »