Gujarat Court April 2001 Judgments
Udaykumar H. Dave Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-23-2001
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2142
D.A. Mehta, J.1. A practising Advocate of Rajkot who is a follower of Ramgufa Sadavrat has approached this Court by filing this Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner has stated that the case pertains to three parcels of land situated near Alang in Talaja Taluka of District Bhavnagar. It appears that due to development of Alang the land in the surrounding areas has become very valuable and in relation to three plots of land approximately Rs. 1 crore and odd have been awarded by Land Acquisition Officer as compensation while the claim is for larger amount. Reference under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act is pending before the District Court, Bhavnagar being Land Reference No. 20 of 1998 and by order dated 20-10-1999 this Court (Coram : C. K. Thakker, Actg.C.J. and K. M. Mehta, J.), has directed that the amount shall not be withdrawn by respondent Nos. 7 to 18.2. The petitioner has made a prayer to the effect that :'17[A] This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamu...
Tag this Judgment!Bipinchandra P. Patel Vs. Anand Area Deve Authority
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-23-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3265
B.C. Patel, J.1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the Resolution dated 04/06/1991 passed by Anand Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as `the AADA'), Respondent No.1, and approved by the President, Anand Municipality, Anand, Respondent No.3, on 12/06/1991. The petitioners have further prayed that the document entered into between one Jivaben and others and the Senior Assistant of the AADA, Respondent No.1, in pursuance of the letter dated 14/06/1991 be cancelled. The petitioners have further prayed for issuance of direction against the Respondent No.4 to immediately hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the entire plot of land being part and parcel of Final Plot No. 270 of Town Planning Scheme No.4, Anand, to the Anand Municipality, Respondent No.2. The petitioners have further prayed to direct the State Government to take appropriate action against Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 3 as also against O...
Tag this Judgment!Surat Mahila Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. Mamtaben Mahendrabhai Joshi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-21-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR666]; (2002)1GLR755; (2001)IILLJ567Guj
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 9th May, 2000 passed in Special Civil Application No. 8195 of 1999 (Coram : H. K. Rathod, J. reported in 2001 (2) GLR 1248), by which the learned single Judge has dismissed the Special Civil Application, which was filed by the present appellant and confirmed the orders passed by the Industrial Court as well as by the Labour Court.2. The facts leading to the controversy are as under :-The appellant is a Co-operative Bank. It appoints the employees in different categories, i.e. Apprentice (Trainee), temporary employee, thereafter Probationer; and on completion of probationary period, permanent appointment is given to such employee. The aforesaid mode of recruitment is provided in the Model Standing Orders applicable to the appellant-Bank.3. The present respondent was initially appointed as a Trainee in the Bombay Market Branch between 13th March, 1990 and 21st March, 1991, and d...
Tag this Judgment!H.K. Dhruva Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-20-2001
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2703
ORDER 2 RULE 2 :4.1. Order 2, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code reads as follows : 'Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action, but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of anyCourt.' 'Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.' 4.2. The applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in AIR 1977 SC 1466. In Para 25 of the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : 'The contention of Madhya Pradesh cannot be accepted. The plaintiff will be barred under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure only when he omits to sue for or relinquishes the claim in a suit with knowledge that h...
Tag this Judgment!Himatbhai Panchabhai Makwana Vs. Jiviben Khimabhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-20-2001
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ241Guj
ORDERK.M. Mehta, J.1. Leave to add controlling authority as party respondent.The petitioner Himatbhai Panchabhai Makwana, Proprietor Param Shakti Ceramic Industries. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-petitioner has filed this petition against the judgment and order dated March 26, 1998 passed by the appellate authority, Payment of Gratuity in appeal No. 39 of 1997. The appellate authority by its impugned judgment and order was pleased to condone the delay in filing the application by the employee in the interest of employee and after condoning the delay also decided the matter on merits that the employee-respondent is entitled to payment of gratuity as per the Payment of Gratuity Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Payment of Gratuity Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). It may be noted that the petitioner has also filed review application on May 6, 1998 which has also been rejected by the authority on July 15, 1998.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under:Jiviben...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Saurashtra Oil Mills Association and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-19-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR375
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated llth April, 2001 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9446 of 2000 (Rajmoti Industries v. State, reported in 2001 (3) GCD 2530. (Letters Patent Appeal No. 331 of 2001) and 9764 of 2000 (Letters Patent Appeal No. 330 of 2001), by which these two Special Civil Applications were allowed by setting aside the impugned Order dated 26th July, 2000 at Annexure 'A' to the petitions, prescribing stock limit of edible oilseeds and edible oils under Clause 24(1) of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control & Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Order of 1981'), and by ordering that the words 'edible oilseeds and edible oils' wherever occurring in the State Order of 1981 stand deleted hereafter.1.2 Both these appeals have been fully and finally heard at the request of learned Counsel appearing for both the sides.2. In Special Civi...
Tag this Judgment!Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-19-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR685
A.L. Dave, J. 1. The petitioners originally owned some lands in the outskirts of village Gadkhol of Ankleshwar taluka of Bharuch district,, which came to be acquired by the Government of Gujarat after following procedure under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of constructing a road on the southern bank of river Narmada. Compensation was fixed, and ultimately, paid to the land owners as per the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bharuch, dated the 19th June, 1972. While awarding compensation, in Paragraph 14 of the award (page 99, Mark-3) relating to apportionment, it was decided that as the village record shows that the lands are held on new and restricted tenure, only 2/3rd of the market value of the land should be paid to the occupants concerned and 1/3rd of the compensation of the land was set apart and apportioned hi favour of the Government. 1.1 After the acquisition, for certain reasons, there was a change in the road plans and the Government no more required ...
Tag this Judgment!Dipali Mrugen Purohit Vs. Municipal Commissioner and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-19-2001
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3324
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the Advertisement dated 14-7-2000 inviting applications from general category candidates for one post of Junior Lecturer-cum-Refractionist at C.H. Nagri Eye Hospital, and has prayed that this advertisement be quashed and has further prayed that the respondent-Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation be directed to fill up the post of aforesaid Junior Lecturer from amongst the eligible candidates of Scheduled Tribe and Socially & Economically Backward Class (S.E.B.C.) category.2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner belongs to S.E.B.C. Category and obtained Certificate from District Social Welfare Officer (Annexure-A). She possesses requisite qualification, namely, she holds Diploma in Ophthalmology and Master of Surgery in Ophthalmology standing first class first in both the examinations. There was huge backlog regarding appointments on the reserved post. Consequently, the respondent No. 1 through advertisement date...
Tag this Judgment!Midwest Leasing Limited Vs. Ambalal Sarabai Enterprises Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3441
K.M. Mehta, J. Rule. Mr.Chudgar for Nanavati Associates waives Rule on behalf of Respondent No.1.1. M/s.Midwest Leasing Limited has filed this winding up petition against M/s.Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited (hereinafter referred to as `the Company'). The said petition was filed somewhere in April 1992.2. The facts of the case are as under:2.1 That on 21st March, 1988, the petitioner and the Company entered into a lease agreement for supply of equipment, namely, PODBI ELNIAK CENTRIFUGAL Contractor at a monthly lease of Rs.1,95,000/-. On 5.12.1991 the petitioner addressed a letter to the Company demanding payment of outstanding dues about 19 lacs due till then. On 21.12.1991 the Company addressed a letter to the petitioner informing to make the payment in future.2.2 Thereafter petitioner addressed a statutory notice dtd.6.2.1992 under the provisions of Companies Act demanding Rs.28,90,241.64. The Company received the notice but did not reply the same. Thereafter present petition was...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Financial Corporation Vs. Ashaben J. Dave and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR193
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Appeal is admitted. Mr. Karia, learned Advocate, and Mr. V. M. Pancholi, learned A.G.P., appear and waive service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respectively.With the consent of parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing today.2. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 23rd March, 2001, passed in Special Civil Application No. 1120 of 2001. The learned single Judge, taking cognisance of a letter addressed by respondent No. 1 to the learned single Judge and handed over to the Private Secretary of the learned Judge, entertained the aforesaid petition as suo mom proceedings and disposed of the same by giving various directions to the present appellant.3. The respondent No. 1 herein addressed a letter to the learned Judge, wherein she has pointed out that even though she has retired, she has been given only 60% of her gratuity amount, instead of 100%, without assigning any valid reasons. She has als...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »