Gujarat Court June 2000 Judgments
President, State Transport Co-op. Credit and Thrift Society Ltd. Vs. S ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR759]; (2002)IVLLJ504Guj
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Learned advocate Mr. Bharat G. Jani appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. I.M. Pandya appearing on behalf of the respondent on caveat. In the present petition award passed by the Labour Court, Kalol in Reference No. 133 of 1989 dated May 14, 1999 has been challenged by the petitioner. In the said award the Labour Court has set aside the order of termination and granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 50% back wages of interim period. The brief facts of the present petition are that the respondent workman was appointed as a Clerk in the year 1984 by the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent workman was appointed on November 2, 1985 as a daily rated ad hoc Clerk by the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent workman was appointed by order dated August 29, 1986 with effect from August 1, 1986 in the post of Clerk on probation for the period of one year with a condition that if during the probationary period the work of respondent i...
Tag this Judgment!Dy. Executive Engineer (Mechanical), Magadalla Port Development Scheme ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR38]
ORDER1. Learned Advocate Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. D. M. Thakker appearing on behalf of the respondents. Rule Mr. D. M. Thakker learned Advocate on behalf of respondents waives the service of rule with the consent of both the learned Advocates, the matter has been taken up for final hearing today. In the present petition, the award passed by the Labour Court, Surat in Reference Nos. 247, 248 and 265 of 1985 dated 30th September, 1998 has been challenged wherein, the Labour Court, Surat has granted reinstatement with continuity of service with full backwages of interim period. The respondents were appointed as Seaman in the year 1980 and remained in service upto 6th August, 1983 and their service were terminated on 6th August, 1983. The said termination orders were challenged by the respondents-workman before the Labour Court, Surat in Reference Nos. 247, 248 and 265 of 1985. The statement of claim was filed by the respondent wo...
Tag this Judgment!Mansingbhai Kahalsingbhai and ors. Vs. Surat Municipal Corporation and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Guj44; (2000)2GLR109
ORDEROn pronouncement of the judgment today, Mr. Mangukiya, learned Advocate requested the Court to stay implementation and operation of the judgment for eight weeks. The request is rejected. The judgment cannot be stayed.Mr. Mangukiya submitted that the appellant may be protected for some time or till heis able to obtain the orders from higher Court. It is directed that the building erected shall not be demolished for a period of four weeks from today. However, the appellant shall maintain status quo and shall file an undertaking in this Court that he shall not cany out further construction. He shall place on record the photographs of the building as on today. Mr. Mangukiya states that ten days time may be granted to file the undertaking and to produce the photograph. Time is granted. It is however directed that the Municipal Corporation shall not regularise the construction merely because the petitioner is directed to maintain status quo. All other directions except with regard to de...
Tag this Judgment!Girish Mistry, Chairman, Indian Institute of Architects Vs. State of G ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Guj16
B.C. Patel, J.1. By way of this Public Interest Litigation the petitioner, the Chairman of the Indian Institute of Architects, Gujarat Chapter, Ahmedabad, has moved this Court for quashing and setting aside the agreement entered into between the respondent, Gujarat Housing Board and respondent No. 3 Sandip & Prerak Associates claiming to be the reputed Architectural Consultancy Firm.2. Short facts which are relevant to dispose of this petition are as under :3. The Architects Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Architects Act') has been enacted by the Parliament which provides for Council of Architects, President and Vice-President of Council, Finances of Council, Recognition of qualifications granted by authorities in India, Recognition of architectural qualifications granted by authorities in foreign countries, effect of recognition, Minimum standard of architectural education and Professional conduct etc. Chapter III refers to Registration of Architects. Chapter III provides f...
Tag this Judgment!Firoz M. Battiwala Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Guj304; (2001)3GLR1975
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the decision of the State Government rejecting the petitioner's application for renewal of the certificate to practise as a Notary.2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition, briefly stated, are as under :-In the year 1987 the petitioner was appointed as Notary by the Government of Gujarat. The certificate to practise as a Notary was renewed from time to time. The last certificate which was issued to the petitioner was for the period from 23-4-1996 to 22-4-1999. The petitioner applied for renewal of the certificate on 30-6-1999 and also paid Rs. 500/- as renewal fees by money order. The petitioner in his application had submitted that on account of illness and death of his mother-in-law, he could not prefer the application before the expiry of the period of certificate. On 24-9-1999 the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to furnish certain info...
Tag this Judgment!Executive Engineer, Narmada Yojna and anr. Vs. Legal Heirs of Bhagwanb ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR818]; (2002)IVLLJ534Guj
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Learned advocate Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. M.S. Barot appearing on behalf of the respondent. Rule, Mr. M.S. Barot learned advocate on behalf of respondent waives the service of rule, with the consent of both the learned advocates, the matter has been taken up for final hearing today. In the present petition, the award passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference No. 354 of 1991 dated October 23, 1997 has been challenged wherein, the Labour Court, Bhavnagar has granted full back wages from March 21, 1991 to July 14, 1996 with all consequential benefits of interim period. The brief facts of the present petition is that respondent was appointed in service about one year prior to date of termination March 21, 1991. The finding of the Labour Court on the basis of legal evidence that respondent has completed one year continuous service and completed 240 days continuous service and these facts have not been di...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Employees Union Vs. Gujarat Mi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR450]; (2002)1GLR26
B.C. Patel, J.1. Special Civil Application No. 3631 of 1990 is filed by Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the award made by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal at Ahmedabad on 30-12-1989 in Reference (ITC) No. 28 of 1984 (Annexure 'G'). By an amendment, it was further prayed to modify the award at Annexure 'G' in terms of the settlement (Annexure T Colly) or to dispose of this petition in terms of the settlement at Annexure T.2. Special Civil Application No. 1404 of 1987 is preferred by Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Employees Union (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trade Union') against the Corporation inter alia praying for a writ ofmandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Corporation to pay House Rent Allowance as well as Project ...
Tag this Judgment!Bolabhai Hirabhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-2000
Reported in: (2000)3GLR242
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Whether, the appellant-accused is guilty of offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IP Code), or his act falls within the exception under section 84 of the IP Code, is the question posed before us, in this appeal, against the judgment and order of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha, in Sessions Case No.103/95, on 23.4.1996.2. Pursuant to the direction contained in the order dated October 28, 1997, in Criminal Appeal No.976/97 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2615/97, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this appeal came to be re-admitted and record and proceedings were called for and since the appellant is in custody and he could not secure service of private Advocate and it seems he is an indigent person, he was provided with, legal aid in his defence. While disposing of the appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed to dispose of this appeal, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three m...
Tag this Judgment!Sharma Metal Rolling Mills and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR2815
B.C. Patel, J.1. In this group of matters, petitioners have prayed for a declaration that section 2(2)(a) and Section 3 of the Bombay Electricity Duty (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1988 (Gujarat Act No. 7 of 1988) are unconstitutional and ultravires being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India and, therefore, unenforceable as against the petitioners and consequently, have prayed to quash and set aside the demand at Annexure 'A' to the petition.2. With a view to dispose of this group of matters, short facts are required to be taken into consideration, and such facts, as it appears in one of the Special Civil Applications, being Spl. C.A. No. 5723/81, are as under :-2.1 The petitioner firm used to purchase re-rollable scrap from the ship-breaking yard at Alang. The petitioner used to manufacture flat bars upto 5 mm. in thickness of various sizes. The petitioner unit is classified as a Small Scale Unit, and, therefore, the unit was paying ele...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantigar S. Gosai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR489
B.C. Patel, J.1. Petitioner, making a grievance that there is a denial of grade of trained teachers as per Desai Pay Commission recommendations, has approached this Court by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner is also contending that grade of untrained teacher on the ground that the teacher is not trained is against the constitutional mandate of 'equal pay for equal work', and is discriminatory.2. The petitioner has stated that he is possessing higher qualifications, viz., B.A. and G.B.T.C. According to the petitioner, G.B.T.C. is a qualification prescribed for imparting training to P.T.C. students. The P.T.C. students after qualifying are considered as trained teachers for imparting education to students attending primary schools. Before the learned single Judge, at the time of hearing on 2.5.1998, it was contended that several Judges of this Court have taken a view that the qualification of B.A., B.Ed. is higher than that of P.T.C. and the tea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »