Gujarat Court May 2000 Judgments
Hindustan Apparel Industries Vs. Fair Deal Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-09-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Guj261; (2000)2GLR1422
M.S. Parikh, J.1. Short question which requires consideration by this Full Bench as referred to by a learned single Judge of this Court as per oral judgment dated 14-10-1999 [Coram : K.R. Vyas, J.] is: Whether the payment by cheque which is dishonoured amounts to acknowledgement of a debt and a liability ?2. For the purpose of answering the Reference, let there be a brief resume of the facts and reasons for Reference.The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 61,886-16 plus Rs. 11,124/- by way of interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 4-3-1974 from the defendant (The parties were respectively the appellant and the respondent in the First Appeal proceedings). The trial Court decreed the suit for Rs. 26,371.86 with running interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the suit till payment holding that that such claim was within the time, whereas the rest of the claim was barred by law of limitation. It was contended in the appeal that the cheques Exhs. 117 and 119 dated 15-4-1974 and 27-3-1974 ...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board and anr. Vs. Ketanbhai Dinkarr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-09-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1829
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Learned Advocate Mr. Munshaw is appearing for the petitioners in this group of petitions and learned Advocate Mr. Pathak is appearing for the respondent-workman in each petition. 2. Rule. Learned Advocate Mr. P. H. Pathak appearing for the respondent-workman in each petition has waived service of rule. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, all these petitions have been taken up for final hearing today itself. 3. In this group of petitions, this Court (Coram : Miss R. M. Doshit, J.) issued notice to the respondents returnable on 17th December, 1999 and meanwhile, ad interim relief in terms of para 8(C) has been granted. 4. In the present petitions, the petitioner-Board has challenged the order passed by the labour Court, Amreli in Recovery Application Nos. 318 to 360 of 1998 (Old Nos. 866 to 980 of 1995). The labour Court has passed a common order in the said group of recovery applications under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the ...
Tag this Judgment!Dist. Panchayat Deleted Vs. Shantiben Bhimabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-09-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR1033]
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Porbandar dated 15-2-1992 awarding compensation, penalty and interest against the respondents.2. The brief facts are that Bhimabhai was serving as driver with Taluka Panchayat - appellant No.1. The respondent No.4 is the insurance company. Jeep car bearing No. GUJ 9767 was insured with the respondent No.4. The accident occurred on 2-8-1988. The deceased was driving the aforesaid vehicle owned by the opposite party No.2 before Compensation Commissioner. The accident occurred at 1.30 P.M.. The driver had sustained injuries and he died. The heirs of the deceased claimed compensation, penalty and interest etc.3. The application for claim was contested on the ground that the compensation could be claimed from the driver and the owner of the truck and there was no liability of the opposite party No.1 to pay compensation.4. The opposite party No.2 in the court below also denied l...
Tag this Judgment!Arti Gases Vs. Director of Income-tax (investigation)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-09-2000
Reported in: [2001]248ITR55(Guj)
1. In view of the fact that these petitions involve certain common questions of fact as well as law, at the request of the learned advocates, these petitions are heard together and they are also finally decided by this common order. 2. The facts leading to the petitions are as under : The petitioners are partnership firms whose partners are related to each other. The case of the petitioners is that search and seizure operations were carried out at the premises of the petitioners and their partners in January, 1999. Though nothing incriminating was found, notices under the provisions of Sections 158BC and 131(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), were served upon them. It is their case that the search was not proper for the reason that the provisions of Section 132 of the Act had not been complied with. In the circumstances, it has been prayed that the entire proceedings with regard to the search and seizure carried out under the provisions of Section 1...
Tag this Judgment!Arti Gases Vs. Director of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-09-2000
Reported in: [2001]113TAXMAN68(Guj)
ORDERIn view of the fact that these petitions involve certain common questions of fact as well as law, at the request of the learned advocates, these petitions are heard together and they are also finally decided by this common order.2. The facts leading to the petitions are as under:The petitioners are partnership firms whose partners are related to each other. The case of the petitioners is that the search and seizure operations were carried out at the premises of the petitioner and their partners in January, 1999. Though nothing incriminating was found, notices under the provisions of sections 158BC and 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were served upon them. It is their case that the search was not proper for the reason that the provisions of section 132 of the Act had not been complied with. In the circumstances, it has been prayed that the entire proceedings with regard to the search and seizure carried out under the provisions of section ...
Tag this Judgment!Jigneshkumar Chimanlal Patel and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR432
R.R. Tripathi, J. 1. The petitioners are the persons who re possessing qualification of S.S.C. and P.T.C. and their names appeared in the merit list at serial Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing a Special Civil Application No. 7859 of 1998 and the said Special Civil Application came to be disposed of along with Special Civil Application No. 5218 of 1998, wherein directions were issued by this Court for constitution of a Vidya Sahayak Committee, which came to be constituted by a Resolution dated 31-8-1998. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were called for the interview which were scheduled to be held on 21-4-1999 in the office of the District Primary Education Officer at Himatnagar. At the relevant time an undertaking was taken from the petitioners that the petitioners would forgo the claim to the post of Assistant Teachers and that they will be placed in the post of Vidya Sahayak with a consolidated salary of Rs. 2500/-. The...
Tag this Judgment!Schoot Glass India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Labour and Conc ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-08-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR541]; (2000)IILLJ1498Guj
ORDERH.K. Rathod, J. 1. Learned advocate Mr. Raval has appeared for the petitioner in this group of petitions and Ms. Anu Varma has appeared for M/s. Patel Advocates for Respondent no. 1. Learned advocate Mr. N. R. Shahani has appeared for Respondent no. 2 and Mr. Nagesh Sood has appeared for Respondent no. 3 in this group of petitions. 2. Nothing could be more unfortunate for the poor workman. Justice remains illusive, far cry for him in spite of so much laws. Slow pace of bureaucracy on one hand and the page for disposal by the Labour Court, on the other, led to injustice. 3. In this group of petitions, the order passed by the respondent Assistant Commissioner of Labour and the Conciliation Officer, Bharuch dated 27th September, 1999 has been challenged by the petitioner wherein the Assistant Commissioner of Labour has passed order under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act joining the petitioner as party Respondent no. 2 in the respective references 1992 pending before the Labour Court....
Tag this Judgment!Jitendra Chhabildas Jayswal Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR608
A.L. Dave, J.1. The petitioner - Jitendrabhai Chhabildas Jaiswal, has been detained under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 ('PASA Act' for short) by virtue of an order passed by Commissioner of Police, Vadodara City, Vadodara, in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the PASA Act, dated December 19, 1999.2. The grounds of detention indicate that the detaining authority took into consideration one prohibition offence registered against the petitioner. The detaining authority also took into consideration the statements of three anonymous witnesses in respect of two incidents that occurred on October 7, 1999, October 23, 1999 and November 23, 1999 and came to conclusion that the petitioner is a 'bootlegger', that his activities are detrimental to public order, that fear expressed by the witnesses qua the petitioner was genuine and therefore, powers under section 9(2) of the PASA Act were exercised by the detaining authority by not disclosing ...
Tag this Judgment!Khavas Laxman Gagu Vs. Gulabkunverba Aurvedic Society
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)2GLR668
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. This Revision Application is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Jamnagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.5 of 1981. The petitioner herein is the original defendant, against whom the respondent filed a suit, being Civil Suit No.444 of 1974, in the Court of learned Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Jamnagar.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a Society. The suit property was given on rent to the defendant tenant at the rate of Rs.10/- per month, that the defendant had not paid rent for a long time and he was in arrears from 1.8.1968 and, therefore, demand notice was given to him on 8.7.1974. In spite of the same, the defendant had not complied with the same. Therefore, the aforesaid suit was filed for getting decree for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. In addition to the aforesaid ground, other grounds were also raised, i.e., acquisition of alternative premises by the tenant, non-user by the tenant and chan...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Pollution Control Board Vs. Parmar Devusinh Shersinh and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Guj11; (2001)1GLR114
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Challenge is made in the Special Civil Application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to the order dated 24th May, 1998 of the Appellate Authority constituted under Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, in Appeal No. 17 of 1986. The appeal is filed by the respondent No. 1 and under the impugned order, same was held to be maintainable. The objection raised by the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the appeal was came to be disallowed under this impugned order.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has no locus standi to file the appeal before the Appellate Authority. It is a grievance of the respondent No. 1 before the Appellate Authority that the consent order passed by the petitioner in respect of the respondent No. 2-Industry will adversely affect the petitioner and other persons of the area and he has right of appeal. It is true that re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »