Gujarat Court May 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.
NitIn A. Mehta Vs. Mehta Prafullaben Dalpatrai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR396]; (2001)ILLJ1348Guj
1. In the present writ petition, the order dated 23-12-1999 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Bhavnagar in Gratuity Application No. 17 of 1999 is under challenge. 2. The respondent-workman has filed application claiming the benefit of gratuity under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the petitioner-Abhinav Siksan Sikshak Samaj (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society'). Before the Controlling Authority, the petitioner-Society has raised a preliminary contention that the provisions of Gratuity Act are not applicable, and therefore, the Controlling Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain and try such application filed by the respondent-workman. The said preliminary contention has been examined by the Controlling Authority and came to the conclusion that considering the notification issued by the Central Government dated 3rd April, 1997, the educational institutions are covered within...
Mohanlal Sajandas Vs. Hareshkumar Narandas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3168
C.K. Thakkar, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioners for appointment of Shri Otnamal Shamumal as Arbitrator and for referring the dispute difference between the parties for adjudication by allowing this petition. Prayer is also made to restrain the rescindments from conducting partnership business in the name and style of 'Vinayk Cold Storage Company' and from transacting, dealing or transferring the property of Vinayak Cold Storage Company in favour of any other party.2. The case of the petitioners was that petitioners and respondnts entered into a partnership deed on 30th March, 1996 and started business in the name and style of 'Vinayak Cold Storage Company' at Jamnagar. Shares of all the partners were fixed under the said agreement. Clause 4 provides that partnership was 'partnership at will'. Clause 13 fixed shares of the partners and clause 21 provided that in case of difference or dispute, the matter shall be settled by arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the...
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. M.i. Pathan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR397
1. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.2. The brief facts of the present writ petition are that the respondent no. 1 was appointed on the post of Driver with the petitioner-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Limited [hereinafter referred to as, `the Corporation']. The petitioner-Corporation relieved the respondent no.1-M.I Pathan [hereinafter referred to as, `the respondent workman'] on account of unfitness i.e., permanent weakness of eye-sight. The said decision was taken after having a complete check-up by the Civil Surgeon, based on unfitness certificate issued by the said Civil Surgeon. Now, since the respondent-workman was relieved from service of the petitioner-Corporation on account of unfitness, the son of the respondent workman [the respondent no. 2 herein] applied for employment on the post of Helper Grade-IV on the compassionate grounds. The concerned officer appointed verified the authenticity of the application submitted by the respondent no. 2 and...
Ahir Nimeshkumar Babubhai Vs. South Gujarat University
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3577
1. Rule, service of which is waived by learned advocate Mr D.C.Dave for the respondents. Upon request and considering the urgency, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. In substance, the question surfaced, in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, revolves around, as to whether the Court of Law, and that too, of a Writ Court, exercising powers under Article 226, could be a collaborative or a party to break or make the law, to protect a person, who has failed to get the minimum required marks for eligibility criteria or entitlement for admission in MBA on the ground that the petitioner, a student, who belongs to Other Backward Community (hereinafter referred to as 'OBC'), is entitled to be treated at par with the students belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe for whom the minimum qualifying marks for MBA, is by concession reduced to 45 per cent or not, to which the reply, obviously, and positively ought to be in negative and, instantaneously...
Anvarbhai Kasambhai Vs. Chief Security Commissioner
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR750
R.R. Tripathi, J.1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of an order of removal of the petitioner on the ground of unauthorised absence, which came to be confirmed in appeal also.2. Short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner, who was serving as Constable in Railway Protection Force ('RPF' for brevity) at Pratap Nagar, Vadodara was due to resume his duty in the shift of 0000 hours to 0800 hours on 12.2.1991. The petitioner did not resume his duty till the service of the charge sheet which was served on 10.1.1992. It is the case of the department that the petitioner was served with two notices dated 20.6.1991 and 2.8.1991, which were received by the petitioner on 22.6.1991 and 6.8.1991 respectively, whereby the petitioner was asked to report for duty, but the petitioner did not. Nor did he intimate the cause of his absence. The petitioner was, therefore, charged for leaving headquarters without permission and remaining absent from d...
S.T. Texturisers and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-2000
Reported in: 2000(70)ECC606; 2002(142)ELT308(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. Rule in both the petitions. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service of Rule. At the request of the learned Counsel, the matters are heard today. 2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 10th March, 2000, of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, at Annexure '1' to the petition, rejecting the petitioner's application for restoring the Appeals, on the basis that the amounts which were required to be deposited as a condition for hearing the Appeals and which were not earlier deposited resulting in dismissal of the appeals, have now been deposited. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 10.3.2000, held that the orders dismissing the appeals for non compliance were made on 28.5.1998, while the deposits for the amounts in question were made on various dates after ten months from the date by which compliance of the stay orders had to be shown. According to the Tribunal, the delay in making the deposits was not ...
R.S. Kandilwal Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Guj60
ORDERK.M. Mehta, J. 1. There is a constructed premises being a godown built upon the land admeasuring 83.61 sq. meters out of the land admeasuring 3,744 sq. meters of Survey No. 441 of Ishanpur, Taluka City, District Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'land in dispute'). 2. Shri R. S. Kandilwal petitioner has constructed a godown on the land in dispute for the commercial purpose and the concern run by the petitioner is known as 'Nirmal Roadways'. 3. In the petition the petitioner has stated that, the construction has been done on the land which is Devasthan Inam land, the same being commonly known as Shah-e-Alam Devasthan Inam land and the Inamdar being competent for all purposes to grant non-agricultural permission and collect the revenues and the assessments relating to the 'land in dispute'. It has been submitted that, construction done after having obtained due permission for non-agricultural purposes at the relevant time. 4. It has been stated that, the Deputy Collector iss...
Tulsidas N. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR401
K.M. Mehta, J. 1. There is a constructed premises being a godown built upon the land admeasuring 83.61 sq.meters out of the land admeasuring 3,744 sq. meters of Survey No.441 of Ishanpur, Taluka City, District Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'land in dispute').2. Shri R.S.Kandilwal petitioner has constructed a godown on the land in dispute for the commercial purpose and the concern run by the petitioner is known as 'Nirmal Roadways'.3. In the petition the petitioner has stated that, the construction has been done on the land which is Devsthan Inam land, the same being commonly known as Shah-e-Alam Devsthan Inam land and the Inamdar being competent for all purposes to grant non-agricultural permission and collect the revenues and the assessments relating to the 'land in dispute'. It has been submitted that, construction done after having obtained due permission for non-agricultural purposes at the relevant time.4. It has been stated that, the Deputy Collector issued a show-cau...
Jitendra Corporation Vs. Chinubhai Bhaichandra Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR740
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Both these civil revision applications are directed against the common order passed by the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal Nos. 398/80 and 399/80. The facts leading to the present civil revision applications are as under.2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff of HRP Suit Nos. 2471/76 and 5414/76. The opponent herein is the defendant of both the aforesaid suits. So far as the suit No. 2471/76 is concerned, it is the case of the plaintiff that, it took on lease as the partnership business, land of T.P.S. No. 3, Final Plot No. 104/1 near Income Tax Office, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. The said property is a large property namely Jitendra Chambers which consists of shops, offices and such other premises of different size. These premises were thereafter sold by the plaintiff to different persons having executed in favour of them registered sale deeds. As superstructures only were sold by the plaintiff to such purchasers, such purchase...
Valiulla Inayatkhan Pathan Through Mother Vs. Commissioner of Police
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1156
A.L. Dave, J.1. The detenue - Valiulla Inayatkhan Pathan 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, Surat City, Surat, in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the PASA Act, dated December 24, 1999.2. The grounds of detention indicate that the detaining authority took into consideration 5 offences registered against the detenue. The detaining authority also took into consideration the statements of three anonymous witnesses in respect of the incidents that occurred on October 20, 1999, November 1, 1999 and November 4, 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 identity of these witnesses.3. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›