Gujarat Court May 2000 Judgments
Mangalbhai B. Prajapati Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR242
B.C. Patel, J. 1. Mr. Patel, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has raised several contentions, but for the purpose of disposal of this petition, the following question is only required to be considered :'Whether initiation of proceedings under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act after lapse of considerable time would amount to arbitrary exercise of power and thus bar the exercise of power under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act?'2. This Court is not inclined to consider the other aspects as in view of the settled legal position with regard to delay, this matter is required to be disposed of.3. Transfer of Agricultural land bearing Survey No. 48 admeasuring 1 Acre 20 Gunthas situated in the sim of village Ranasan, Taluka Vijapur, Dist. Mehsana is the subject-matter of the present petition. The petitioner, claiming to be agriculturist was cultivating the agricultural land and since the land was not enough for maintenance of his family, he purchased another land bearing Survey No. 361...
Tag this Judgment!Vaghela Ranjitsinh Devising Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1326
M.R. Calla, J.1. This Special Civil Application has been filed by large number of employees of the Government of Gujarat from Bhuj or the villages nearby in Kachchh-Bhuj District who have been working as Drivers, Peons, Ward Boys, Naiks, Police Constables, Assistants, Surveyors including certain retired employees etc. seeking a direction to quash and set aside the decision of the respondent-authorities so as to charge these petitioners in respect of the land in question for allotment to them at the rate of Rs. 900/- per sq. mtr.2. The case of the present petitioners is that they had applied for allotment of the land for constructing residential houses on different dates in the years1989, 1990 and 1991, on the basis of 'no profit no loss' (Betha Thale) subject to the terms and conditions under Government resolutions dated 1-5-1963 and 28th March, 1989. On the basis of the applications made in the year 1991 and the years prior thereto as above, the Collector, Bhuj arranged a computer dra...
Tag this Judgment!Official Liquidator of Essen Computers Ltd. Vs. Rajendra A. Shah and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas559(Guj)
K.M. Mehta, J.1. In this case, a criminal complaint has been filed under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 1956, i.e., if any person, failed to comply with any of the requirement of this section, i.e., filing of the statement of the affairs made to the official liquidator, he shall be punished with imprisonment or he is liable to pay penalty which may extend to Rs. 100 for every day during which default continued or that both.2. In this case, the official liquidator has stated that this court by its order dated April 17, 1997, passed winding up order for winding up M/s. Essen Computers Ltd. (in liquidation).3. It was stated that accused Nos. 1 to 9 were directors of the company at the relevant time and they failed to file statements of affairs. The official liquidator has filed report dated December 17, 1998.4. When the matter reached hearing before me, I have heard the official liquidator and Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 who has stated...
Tag this Judgment!Saroj Garments Vs. Babulal Ramchandra
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: (2000)2GLR656
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. This is a revision application under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, at the instance of the tenant-original defendant no.1. The respondent no.1 herein is the original landlord-plaintiff, the second respondent is the defendant no.2, who is alleged to be the sub-tenant of the original tenant defendant no.1.2. The landlord had filed a suit in the Rent Court for a decree of eviction against the tenant on four grounds viz. that the tenant is in arrears of rent for more than six months, that the landlord requires the suit premises for personal and bonafide requirements, that the tenant had illegally sub-let the premises to the second defendant, and that the tenant had acquired other suitable accommodation.3. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence on record dismissed the suit of the landlord on all the four grounds.4. The landlord, therefore, preferred an appeal. In the said appeal the question of arrears of rent and also the question of tenant having acquired...
Tag this Judgment!Mer Bhima Meru Goraniya Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4215; (2001)4GLR3005
A.L. Dave, J.1. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Porbandar, issued a notice under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act on July 6, 1998 to the petitioner, calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be externed for a period of two years from the districts of Porbandar, Jamnagar, Junagadh, Rajkot (Rural), Rajkot City and Amreli, on account of allegations made against the proposed externee in the notice. After a reply to the notice was given by the proposed externee/petitioner, inquiry under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act was conducted and, ultimately, the impugned order came to be passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Porbandar, on May 10, 1999, externing the petitioner for a period of two years from the Districts of Porbandar, Jamnagar, Junagadh, Rajkot City and Rajkot (Rural).2. The said order was carried in appeal under Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act. The said appeal came to be dismissed. The above referred two orders have given rise to the present petition, whereby t...
Tag this Judgment!J.A. Pandya Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR2993
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the impugned inaction of the respondent for non-preparation of revised pension papers with effect from 16.6.76 and not after the actual date of retirement, like that, 31st March 1984 and other retiral benefits.2. The petitioner was, initially, appointed on 8.7.48 as Clerk under the office of the Deputy Engineer, Meshwo Canal, and he worked there upto 31st December, 1952. Subsequently, he worked as Junior Clerk in the office of the Executive Engineer, Ahmedabad Irrigation Division, Ahmedabad. Thereafter, he worked as Senior Clerk from 17.5.73 to 30.5.76, after getting promotion and worked under the office of the Executive Engineer, Ahmedabad. He also worked as Senior Clerk in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Gujarat Tubewell, Division 1, Ahmedabad from 1.6.76 to 7.5.78. He also worked as Senior Accounts Clerk from 8.5.78 to 30.6.81 and als...
Tag this Judgment!Mujiba Maganjibhai Waghela Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR419
J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. In this group of six petitions, common questions are involved and, therefore, upon request, they are, being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The theme and heart of the dispute, in all these petitions, is non-payment of arrears of family pension for the peri petitioners, who are, widows of the deceased pensioners, no doubt, have been granted family pension, with effect from 1.4.92 as per the resolution of the Government. Therefore, the main relief sought by the petitioners is the recovery of arrears of family pension.3. The following information in a tabular form will highlight the material facts and the nature of the claim.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Petition No. Prayers Service Details Reasons of non-payment-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SCA No.746/93 Claim for F.P. Service from Since expired on 25.3.50w.e.f.26.3.50 2.10.93 to The petitioners husbandan...
Tag this Judgment!Hardesh Kumar Rajaram Vs. Kv. B. Unni and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1315
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Learned Advocate Mr. P. H. Pathak is appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Advocate Mr. M. R. Shall is appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and learned Advocate Mr. Bipin Mehta is appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.2. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by Desk Officer dated 16-04-1998 under Section 12, sub-clause (5) of the I. D. Act, 1947. The petitioner has challenged the termination order by way of raising industrial dispute under the provisions of I. D. Act, 1947. The challenge of the petitioner is that the termination order is violating Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the I. D. Act. On the basis of the dispute raised by the petitioner, conciliation proceedings were initiated and ultimately a Failure Report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer dated 25-2-1998 and after receiving the same from the Conciliation Officer, the Ministry of Labour has examined the said dispute on 16-4-1998 and come to the conc...
Tag this Judgment!Chansama Taluka Panchayat Vs. Sulemanbhai Sujatbhai Malek
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR299; (2002)IVLLJ500Guj
H.K.Rathod, J. 1. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw is appearing for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Pathak is appearing for the respondent workman. In this petition, while issuing rule, this Court has granted ad-interim relief against the operation of the impugned award and has issued notice as to interim relief which was made returnable on December 9, 1999. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondent has appeared and has filed his affidavit in reply to the present petition. Today, the matter was taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, Kalol in Reference No. 170 of 1995 dated June 7, 1999 wherein the Labour Court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service and with full back wages with all consequential benefits. Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the respondent was working with the petitioner as bore operator wit...
Tag this Judgment!Chansama Taluka Panchayat Vs. Sulemanbhai Sujatbhai Malek C/O General ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR652]
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw is appearing for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Pathak is appearing for the respondent workman. Inthis petition, while issuing rule, this court has granted ad interim relief against the operation of the impugned award and has issued notice as to interm relief which was made returnable on 9.12.1999. In response to the notice issued by this court, the respondent has appeared and has filed his affidavit in reply to the present petition. Today, the matter was taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties.2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned award passed by the labour court, Kalol in reference No. 170 of 1995 dated 7.6.1999 wherein the labour court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service and with full back wages with all consequential benefits. Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the respondent was working with the petitioner as bore operator with effect from ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »