Gujarat Court May 2000 Judgments
Anida (Vachara) Jute Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. Vs. Manibhai Punjabhai ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-18-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR239]
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Rule. Service of rule is waived by learned advocate Mr. Clerk appearing for the respondent workman. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for final hearing today itself. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned award dated 4.3.1997 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Complaint ITR No. 18 of 1986 whereby the petitioner has been directed to reinstate the respondent workman with continuity of service with full back wages for intervening period. Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition, in short, are that the respondent was working with the petitioner from 1.1.1975 and his last salary was Rs. 450.00. The services of the respondent was terminated by the petitioner on the basis of the charge of dishonesty and misappropriation and the said order of termination was challenged by the respondent by filing complaint under Section 33-A of the I.D. Act being Complaint No. 18 of 1986. Before the tribunal,...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Shamjibhai Ladhabhai Vs. Ambalal Ranchhoddas Sura Since Decd. Th ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR226
Kundan Singh, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 134 of 1978 by the judgment and decree dated 6-3-1982 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Modasa which has been confirmed by the District Judge, Himatnagar, dismissing Appeal No. 20 of 1982 filed by the appellant vide his judgment and decree dated 27-8-1982.2. The civil proceedings, tenancy proceedings, and land acquisition proceedings had taken place between the parties and at the present time, I am concerned with the civil proceedings which have taken between parties. The appellant filed possessory suit being Suit No. 12 of 1957 against the respondents before the Mamlatdars' Court under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906. The appellant apprehended about obstruction and disturbance in possession over the suit land, and hence he filed Suit No. 12 of 1957 praying for grant of injunction for restraining the respondents from disturbing his possession over the suit land. The Mamlatdar ...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmiben Manubhai Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1284
R.R. Tripathi, J.1. Rule. Service of the rule is waived by Messrs Patel Advocates for respondent No. 1 2. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. The present petition is filed by the widow of one Manubhai Tisabhai Pannar, who died on 5-12-1998, who was working as a Badli workman since 1982. It is the case of the petitioner that the present petitioner had applied for an appointment on compassionate grounds as a Class-IV employee and that the respondents had collected necessary details to ascertain the heirs and legal representatives of deceased husband of the petitioner. But thereafter, the respondent-authorities did not give any response to the application of the petitioner which was supported with the orders passed by this Court in similar circumstances.3. It is also submitted that the respondent-authorities were regularising the services of the workmen working as Badli workmen. Under the circumstances, some of the workmen ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Yunus Khan Miyasherkhan Pathan Vs. Amc, Municipal Commissione ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-10-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Guj330
Patel, J. 1. This Public Interest Litigation is filed on account of inaction on the part of respondents No. 1 to 4 under the provisions contained in the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, Gujarat Town Development Act and Bombay ProvincialMunicipal Corporations Act, 1949. 2. Short facts which are required to beconsidered for disposal of this petition are asunder:2.1 Vatva area, now a part of AhmedabadCity was formerly a part of the AhmedabadDistrict. At that time, the village Panchayatwas required to look after the civic amenitiesof the citizens residing in the area. Largenumber of small factories and industrieshave been established in the Vatva area.Limits of Ahmedabad City came to be extended in 1989 as a result of which the areaof village Vatva came to be included in thelimits of Ahmedabad City. 2.2 The petitioner has pointed out thatresidential and commercial buildings areconstructed illegally in the agricultural landwithout getting permission for non-agricultural use from the c...
Tag this Judgment!Sandeep Prashant Vaidya Vs. Principal, A-one Higher Secondary School a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-10-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Guj8; (2000)4GLR3168
ORDERJ.N. Bhatt, J.1. This is for recording reasons, pursuant to the final order recorded, on 4-5-2000 in this petition, on account of the urgency followed by passage of time and upon joint request.2. The petitioner has been a student in the respondent No. 1 School, A-One School, Ahmedabad, which is hereinafter, referred to as 'the School'. Respondent No. 2 is the Gujarat Higher Secondary Education Board ('Board' for short). The petitioner has, inter alia, contended that his academic career has remained brilliant, as he used to get distinction in all the examinations including the examination of Xth standard conducted by the Board, in which he got 80 per cent marks, and that is one of the reasons why he opted for Science Stream and he is pursuing his study and education in XIIth standard with industry, hard work and sincerity.3. The petitioner completed his first term of XII standard with presence of more than 80 per cent. Even in the mid-term examination held in course of first term, ...
Tag this Judgment!Trikambhai @ Tiko Ravajibhai Thakor Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-10-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4363; (2000)3GLR45
ORDERUnder the provision of Sec. 235(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, and subject to confirmation of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court under Sec. 28(2) of the Cri.P.Code, for the offence punishable under S. 302 of I.P.C., the accused is hereby awarded the sentence of death, and also ordered to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five Thousand Only) in default, two years rigorous imprisonment. For the offence punishable under Sec. 376(2)(F) of IPC., the accused is ordered to suffer life imprisonment and also to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) in default, two years rigorous imprisonment.For the offence punishable under Sec. 363 of IPC., the accused is awarded rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) in default, one year rigorous imprisonment.For the offence punishable under Sec. 451 of IPC., the accused is awarded rigorous imprisonment of 2 years, and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) in default, six months rigo...
Tag this Judgment!Junagadh Nagarpalika Vs. Jethva Dilipbhai Hirabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR613
H.K. Rathod, J.1. In the present petition, the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (ITR) No. 118 of 1991 dated 4th February, 1999 is under challenge. In the said Award, 14 workmen are made permanent with effect from 1st January, 1995. The Industrial Tribunal has further directed that the period from 1st January, 1995 till the date of Award ie., 4th February, 1999 has to be treated as notional as these 14 workmen are entitled to relevant pay scale from the date of the Award.2. Mr. Jayant Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner-Junagadh Nagarpalika [hereinafter referred to as, `petitioner-Nagarpalika'] submitted that the financial condition of the petitioner-Nagarpalika is week and petitioner-Nagarpalika is unable to pay even the regular salary to its existing employees. He further submitted that such a direction of the Tribunal runs contrary to the set-up of Nagarpalika because such a set up is sanctioned by the Director of Municipality and if these fourteen ...
Tag this Judgment!Cadila Laboratories Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-09-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR48
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. In these two petitions, the petitioner-companies against whom recovery is sought to be made of the dues said to have accrued into the Drug Prices Equalisation Account (D.P.E. Account) under Paragraph 17 read with Paragraph 7(2) of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Control Order of 1979'), have challenged the validity of the provisions of Paragraph 7(l)(a) of the Control Order of 1979 as being ultra vires the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Arts. 14, 19, 300A and 265 of the Constitution of India.2. In Special Civil Application No. 3032 of 1999, which has been argued as the lead matter, a declaration is sought that the notice dated 8-5-1985 and the revised demand notice dated 17-7-1997 purporting to make recovery under Paragraph 7(2)(a) read with Paragraph 17 of the Control Order of 1979 are without jurisdiction and illegal and that the respondents have no authority or jurisdiction to issue any notice or ...
Tag this Judgment!Yogesh D. Bhatt and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-09-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR394
R.R. Tripathi, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Digant P. Joshi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents waives service of the rule. Mr. Shailesh Brahmbhatt, learned Advocate for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the petition qua petitioner No. 1, Mr. Yogesh Bhatt in Special Civil Application No. 2105 of 2000. Permission is granted. The petition, Special Civil Application No. 2105 of 2000 shall stand withdrawn so far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs qua petitioner No. 1 only. 2. Initially, the petition, Special Civil Application No. 2105 of 2000 was filed for 11 petitioners, of who, petitioner No. 1, Shri Yogesh Bhatt has withdrawn his petition. This Court by an order dated 29-3-2000 had directed the learned Advocate for the petitioners to file one page petitions for individual petilioners and accordingly, Special Civil Applications Nos. 3090 of 2000 to 3099 of 2000 were filed. All these petitions are disposed of by this common j...
Tag this Judgment!Textile Traders Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Jagdish Bhai Natwarlal Pate ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-09-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ235Guj
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Learned advocate Shri Dipak R. Dave is appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. T. R. Mishra is appearing on behalf of the respondent workman. From the present petition, notice has been issued by this Court on February 28, 2000 and meanwhile ad interim relief had been granted by this Court. So, the said petition is at notice stage and the advocates were heard at the admission stage. 2. In the present petition, the order passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in 'T' Application No. 140 of 1993 dated June 22, 1998 has been challenged. In the said order, Labour Court, Ahmedabad has granted reinstatement of the respondent workman with continuity of service and with full back wages of interim period with a cost of Rs. 1,000. The said order passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad is under the provisions of Bombay Industrial Relations Act and therefore, the petitioner has challenged the said order passed by the Labour Court in Appeal (T.T.) 41 of 1998 before...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »