Gujarat Court September 2000 Judgments
Shailendrabhai Motilal Mehta and ors. Vs. Krishnaben Vrajlal Mehta and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ887; I(2002)DMC45; (2001)3GLR1887
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. The order dated 22-1-1997 passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Ahmedabad (Rural) is under challenge in this Revision.Through the impugned order the learned Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) issued a general search warrant under Section 93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was directed against the respondent No. 1.2. The respondent No. 1 has not appeared nor his Counsel has appeared though the list was revised four times. As such Shri V. H. Patel, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Shri M. A. Bukhari, learned A.P.P., representing the respondent No. 2, have been heard.3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.P.P., I have no hesitation in my mind in observing that the learned Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) has committed grave illegality and patent jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. In the impugned order, it is not mentioned whether general search warrant under Section 93 Cr.P.C. was issued for enabling the office...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Pradipkumar Kantilal and ors. Vs. Patan Municipality and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Guj140
M.R. Calla, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 21-7-97 passed in Special Civil Application No. 3956/97. The contents of this order are reproduced as under :--'Heard Mr. Patel for the petitioners. Mr. Kodekar, AGP, appears for Mr. Patel Advocate for respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4. None present for respondent No. 1. The petitioner seeks a direction to set aside the order of the State Government which finalises the revised development plan of the Patan Municipal area, vide Government Notification dt. 22nd May, 1987. It is too late in the day to challenge the same.1A. The grievance of the petitioner is that plots Nos. 5, 6, 15, 16 and 26 belonged to him, will be going in road widening. As pointed out by Mr. Kodekar, and rightly so, that there was a settlement between the respondent No. 1 Municipality and the petitioner and the said settlement was recorded on stamp papers Nos. 70, 71 purchased on 6-9-1996. In that, the petitioner had recorded that he intends to...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. Vs. Aarti Steel Industries and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: (2002)1GLR186
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited - Appellate (original respondent) has filed these First Appeal Nos. 1679 and 1680 of 2000 under Section 39 of Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter be referred to as 'the Old Arbitration Act') against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court (Senior Division) at Vadodara in Miscellaneous Civil (Arbitration) Application No. 255 of 1999. The trial Court by the impugned judgment and decree please to confirm the award of the arbitrator under Section 14(2) of the old Arbitration Act filed by Aarti Steel Industries-respondent (original claimant). The trial Court confirmed the award dated 15th June, 1999 passed by Arbitrator in this behalf.2. The relevant facts of these appeals are as under :-2.1 Aarti Steel Industries, the present respondent (original claimant) entered into a contract for supply and erections, etc., for Sardar Sarovar Dam purpose with the present appellant. The respondent could not supply and carry on thejob in time...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Neotia, Chairman Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs. State of Gujar ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3460
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. The order dated 30.9.1997 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. is under challenge in this Revision.2. List has been revised four times, but out of 12 revisionists none is present nor their counsel reported at any of the four calls when the list was revised four times. Shri K.C.Shah, learned A.P.P. for the respondent No.1 has been heard. The respondent No.2, representing as Constituted Attorney of four persons, who has appeared and argued in person, has been heard. The impugned order has been examined.3. It appears from the record that a complaint was filed against the revisionist u/s. 420 and 114 of Indian Penal Code. Cognizance was taken by the concerned Court by accepting the complaint and after completing the formalities of recording the statement of the complainant and other witnesses process was issued against the revisionist. This was done after finding prima facie material to proceed against the revisionist. The or...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. R.S. Prajapati
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-2000
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR585]; (2001)1GLR628
D.P. Buch, J. 1. The petitioner abovenamed is a Corporation incorporated under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The petitioner-Corporation is also the employer of the respondent. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13-9-1990 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference (IT) No. 83 of 1987 under which the learned Tribunal partly allowed the said reference against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent and directedthat so far the order of the petitioner holding the respondent guilty in the departmental proceedings is concerned, the said decision is not altered, but it is confirmed. However, the learned Tribunal came to the decision that the order passed by the petitioner against the respondent for stoppage of increment for 7 years with permanent effect is modified and new punishment has been inflicted against the respondent for stoppage of increment for 3 years without perm...
Tag this Judgment!D.K. Trivedi Vs. President, Gadhda Education Trust and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1176
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard Mr. N. N. Gandhi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Navin Pahwa, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. R. V. Desai, learned A.G.P., on behalf of the respondent No. 3 so also Mr. Deepak R. Dave for Mr. A. D. Oza on behalf of the respondent No. 4.2. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal in Application No. 269 of 1987 dated 4th October, 1989. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are as under :-The petitioner was working as the teacher since 6th September, 1952 in M. M. High School, Gadhada managed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 at the time of his appointment the school was a Government Secondary School and the petitioner continued as a Government teacher till 1971. In the year 1971, the school was transferred to private body namely Gadhada Education Trust and the petitioner was continued as protected teacher. The petition...
Tag this Judgment!PravIn H. Shukla Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-2000
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR1155]; (2002)IVLLJ462Guj
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. These four petitions involve common contentions and have been argued together by the learned counsel appearing For the respective parties. The first three petitions are almost identical. The petitioners who are the Bank employees of me Central Bank of India and Bank of Baroda have in these three petitions sought a direction on the Bank not to deduct any wages on the ground of absence of the concerned employees during the period from March 23, 1987 to March 28, 1987 and to treat them as on leave in terms of the applications that they may have made or were entitled to make. The respective Bank Employees' Associations have also joined as co-petitioners in these three petitions. The office circular dated September 19, 1987 at Annexure 'B' in Special Civil Application No, 6820 of 1987 issued by the Central Bank which is the basis for such action has been challenged in that petition. Though no such circular of the other Bank is challenged in the other two petitions, th...
Tag this Judgment!Miniben Ramabhai Vs. Superintending Engineer and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1639Guj
ORDERJ.N. Bhatt, J.1. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is widow of the deceased employee of the Government, seeks to challenge inaction of the Government, in not responding and affording to her an opportunity for her grievances about the grant of family pension.2. The husband of the petitioner was appointed as unskilled labourer on work charge . basis by the Deputy Executive Engineer, Keshod, who worked upto August 1, 1990, when he died while in service. Petitioner has contended that, her deceased husband had completed almost service of 10 years and he was given benefit of the Govt. Resolution dated October 17, 1988. It is the case of the petitioner that, pursuant to the resolution of the Government the family pension is available to her as deceased had put in more than 7 years service when he died.3. The deceased was placed, by virtue of the Government Resolution, in consolidated salary of Rs. 740/- and was conferred other benefits. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramilaben Hasmukhbhai Khristi W/O Hasmukhbhai Ashabhai Vs. State of Gu ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR783
J.R. Vora, J.1. The Shakespearan love descended on earth, but with unfortunate, morbid and sad sequel, which gave birth to heinous felony causing thereby extinction of human life of auspicious boy, aged about 24 years, by unthinkable inhuman and lurid manner.2. We must not though forget the cardinal principle of criminal justice that, however, the grave crime may be, but the prosecution must prove it beyond reasonable doubt. We are called upon to examine whether the death caused was homicidal, suicidal or accidental, and whether the present appellants could be held responsible for the same.3. Both these Appeals are filed against the judgment and order of conviction, convicting all the appellants of both the Appeals under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and punishing each of the appellants for the imprisonment of life and with fine.4. The root of the prosecution story rests in deep love for each other, amongst two young human beings. Deceased in the present...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Charity Trust
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-2000
Reported in: [2001]252ITR610(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following three questions have been referred for the opinion of this court under the provisions of Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'(1) Whether, it would be necessary that at least 20 per cent, of the voting power is exercisable by the assessee or by the persons referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in view of the Explanation HI to Section 13 of the said Act 1(2) Whether the shares held by a charitable trust could be said to have been held by the assessee or the persons referred to in Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the said Act ?(3) Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption of the dividend income amounting to Rs. 1,777 ?'2. We have heard Mr. Akil Qureshi, for the Revenue, and Mr. R. K. Patel, for the assessee. It has been submitted by the learned advocates that while deciding the case of the present assessee, reference was made with regard to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »