Gujarat Court May 2001 Judgments
Prahladbhai Govindbhai Acharya and ors. Vs. Pritiben Devendrakumar Ach ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-22-2001
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3065
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The petitioners in all seven in number filed this Misc. Criminal Application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and prayer has been made to quash and set aside the order dated 22-3-2001 passed by the Court in Special Criminal Application No. 1034 of 2000 as being in violation of principles of natural justice.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 filed a F.I.R. bearing No. 171 of 1997 in Ghatlodia Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences under Sections 498A, 506(2), 504, 323 read with Section 114 of the I.P.C. and also under Sections 3 and 7 of Prohibition of Dowry Acts. This F.I.R. was lodged by the respondent No. 1 on 15-4-1997. After registration of this F.I.R. of the respondent No. 1 the police arrested all the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 for the alleged offences. The accused persons vis. the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 were produced before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Mirzapur and th...
Tag this Judgment!Sohil Safi Mohammad Vohra Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-15-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR667
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard Mr. K. B. Pande, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the present petitioner and Mr. N. D. Gohil, learned A.P.P., for respondent-State.In the present petition, the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad dated 19th April, 2001 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 223 of 2001 is challenged by the present petitioner. The petitioner has filed regular bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad and that application has been rejected while exercising the powers under Section 439 of Cr. P. C., 1973. Mr. Pande has raised two contentions, of which, the first contention is about consistency in approach by the lower judiciary as relied upon by him in case of S. I. Roopalal v. Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary, Delhi, reported in 2000 (1) SRJ 354. Mr. Pande, learned Advocate has mainly relied upon Para 12 of the said judgment which runs as under :-'12. We are indeed sorry to note the attitude of the Tribunal in this case which, after noti...
Tag this Judgment!Kaushik Kumudchandra Kapadia Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-10-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR848
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard Mr. K. B. Anandjiwala, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. A. D. Oza, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent-State.'The relief has to be granted by the Court according to sound legal principles and ex-debito justiciae. The Court has to administer justice between the parties and cannot convert itself into an instrument of injustice or an engine of oppression. While exercising the powers, the Court must keep in mind the well settled principles of justice and fair play and should exercise the discretion only if the ends of justice require it, for justice is not an object which can be administered in vacuum.'[Extract : Vaish Degree College v. Laxminarayan, reported in AIR 1976 SC 888]'Law cannot be interpreted and enforced divorced from their effect on human beings for whom the laws are meant. Undoubtedly, rule of law must prevail, but as is often said, rule of law must run akin to rule of life. And life of law is not logic but experience..' W...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Kakwani Vs. Gujarat Institute of Educational Technology and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR346
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 28th August, 2000 passed in Special Civil Application No. 8830 of 2000, by which the learned single Judge has dismissed the said Special Civil Application summarily at the admission stage. The issue involved in the present litigation is regarding appointment to the post of Director, Gujarat Institute of Educational Technology (G.I.E.T.).2. The appellant-original petitioner moved this Court by the said Special Civil Application challenging the appointment of respondent No. 3 herein to the aforesaid post of Director by way of Notification dated 20th July, 2000. It is the say of the appellant that he is holding the qualifications of M.Sc., as well as Diploma in Drama and is having experience of Production and Management in different media, like Audio and Video, which is one of the requirements for the post of Director. The appellant was appointed as Assistant Station Director, Do...
Tag this Judgment!Chhanaji Malaji Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3935; (2002)2GLR1121
S.K. Keshote, J. 1. Rule. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents.2. Prayer has been made by the petitioner in this petition to direct the respondents to release him on furlough leave.3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. on 13th July, 1992. This conviction and sentence was brought to the notice by the petitioner before this Court by filing criminal appeal. It is not in dispute that this court has already dismissed that appeal of the petitioner. So this conviction and sentence attained the finality. It is stated that the petitioner is in jail since more than ten years including undertrial period. It is stated that the petitioner has enjoyed three times temporaiy bail and one time furlough leave. It is submitted that in the year 1995, the petitioner surrendered late by 650 days. ...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-2001
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1658
ORDER (Per : Mr. Justice B.C. Patel) 1. Learned Advocates and Counsel appearing for the parties in the matter at the initial stage submitted to this Bench that they have no objection if these matters are heard by this Bench, particularly as one of us (B.C. Patel, J.) was a member of the Standing Committee which has taken the decision in these matters. As Counsel appearing in the matters as well as the Advocates requested the Court that the decision taken by the High Court in its administrative side should not come in way of hearing, the Court decided to proceed further with the matters. On behalf of the State as well as the Advocate General appearing for the High Court similarly stated before the Court.2. These matters raise various questions i.e. whether the petitions filed by the associations or by the Advocates or by the persons who were actually in services and were not selected are maintainable or not. The question with regard to eligibility was also raised. With regard to consult...
Tag this Judgment!Koli Bharatbhai Ukabhai Vegad Vs. District Magistrate
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-2001
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1587
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Centuries old, classic, constitutional, conceptual, and critical contest between; a personal liberty, a life of Democracy; 'Rule the Stale by the Normal', on one hand and 'Oh Liberty! What crimes are committed in thy name'; on the other, has again been, surfaced in this Referential consideration and adjudication, in this petition based on Constitutional writ remedy under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.PREFATORIAL PROFILE :2. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. All men are endowed by their creator with certain 'unamenable rights'. Justice, Liberty and Equality have been the pursuits of Man in civilized society. Preservation of human life is the most important right for an individual. Personal liberty has been claimed as a part of 'right to life' and with the development of this concept, Courts have come to protect various aspects of personal liberty as part of protection of life. Art. 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights prov...
Tag this Judgment!Shantiben L. Christian Vs. Administrative Officer, Ahmedabad Municipal ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR660]; (2001)2GLR1626; (2001)IILLJ1007Guj
B.C. Patel, J.1. Learned single Judge of this Court has referred this matter to a Larger Bench. Hence, this matter is placed before this Bench in view of the Order passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.2. The petitioner approached this Court by filing the aforesaid petition inter alia contending that the petitioner was serving as a Primary Teacher under the respondent-Board (Ahmedabad Municipal School Board). The petitioner joined on 8-7-1947 as a primary teacher and retired on 30th November, 1982. It is contended that the petitioner was entitled to gratuity under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on her retirement. She was paid a sum of Rs. 9,618-25 as per the rules in force at the relevant time. However, the petitioner has claimed that the petitioner was entitled to a larger sum of Rs. 19,573-80 under the provisions of the Act and not Rs. 9618-25. Since the amount was not paid in full according to the petitioner, an application was...
Tag this Judgment!Priti Bhojnagarwala Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-2001
Reported in: II(2003)BC494; (2002)1GLR293
H.H. Mehta, J. 1. This is a group of 30 Criminal Misc. Applications filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'CrPC') by the petitioner-original accused No. 3-Priti Manoj Bhojnagarwala who happens to be the wife of accused No. 2 Manoj Jagdishbhai Bhojnagarwala, with a request to quash and set aside the respective complaints filed by Mr. Priyakant R. Parikh in his individual capacity as well as the Karta of his Hindu Undivided Family and also by his close near relative, as stated in Annexure I which will be a part and parcel of this judgment, 2. With the consent of the learned Advocates for both the parties, these 30 Criminal Misc. Applications are taken up for final hearing in a group and as the common questions of law and facts are involved in this group of 30 Criminal Misc. Applications, they are disposed of by this one common judgment. 3. Common facts leading to this group of 30 Criminal Misc. Applications in a nutshell are as follows. The facts stat...
Tag this Judgment!Bapusingh Sayaba and ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-2001
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ177Guj
ORDERD.C. Srivastava, J.1. These petitions can be finally disposed of at the admission stage. Shri P.H. Pathak, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms. Siddhi Talati, learned counsel for the respondent have been heard.2. The brief facts giving rise to these petitions are as under:'Disputes having arisen between the employees and the employer, it was sought to be resolved through conciliation proceedings which ended in failure. The Conciliation Officer submitted failure report to the appropriate Government on May 15, 2000 vide Annexure 'B'. The appropriate Government considered the failure report and rejected the reference through Annexure 'C' dated July 28, 2000. The communication reads as under: 'The dispute is raised after six years without any justifiable reason'.3. The contention of Shri Pathak is that on grounds of limitation the reference could not be rejected by the appropriate Government. He has placed reliance upon the Apex Court's verdict in Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-op. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »