Gujarat Court May 2001 Judgments
Babubhai Bhimjibhai Kachadiya Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3876; (2002)4GLR3563
C.K. Buch, J.1. Rule. Mr MA Bukhari learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent.2. In this application, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 1.6.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Surat while dealing with Criminal Revision Application No. 115/2000. Pending this revision application, the petitioner has also prayed under Sec. 439(2) of Cr.P.C. stating that even otherwise he could have been granted bail. Mr. Mangukia learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, during the course of the argument has fairly submitted that the petitioner is not interested in formal order qua application for bail preferred under sec. 439(2) of Cr.P.C. and this court should decide this revision application preferred by the petitioner and he should be enlarged on bail confirming the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat dated 20.5.2000 wherein the petitioner was granted bail under sec. 167(2) of Cr.P.C.3. The petition...
Tag this Judgment!Sureshkumar Dodia Vs. Chief Officer/President
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3518
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. A Draft amendment has been given by Shri P.H. Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeking certain amendments in the petition. The draft amendment is opposed by Shri P.V. Hathi, learned Counsel for the respondent. The prayer in the draft amendment is to declare that the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 applies to the employees of the respondent Nagarpalika and direct the respondents to extend the benefits of resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner employees. Alternative amendment is sought that it may be declared that the decision of the respondent to exclude the employees of the Nagarpalika from extending the benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is ultravires the Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and to declare the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to that extent as unconstitutional and direct the respondents to extend the benefits under Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the employees of the Nagarpalika. Further amendment sought is to declare inactio...
Tag this Judgment!Bapusingh Sayaba Vs. Ajay Kumar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-2001
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR849]
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. These petitions can be finally disposed of at the admission stage. Shri PH Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.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 ended in failure. The Conciliation Officer submitted failure report to the appropriate Government on 15-5-2000 vide Annexure-'B'. The appropriate Government considered the failure report and rejected the reference through Annexure-'C' dated 28-7-2000. 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 SING v. SIRHIND COOP. MARKETING-CUM-PROCESSI...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Kantilal Vitthaldas Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-03-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR49
M.R. Calla, J. 1. The petitioners herein claiming to be the owners of the lands situated in the sim of village Kanthravi, Taluka Patan, Dist. Patan, have filed this Special Civil Application with the prayer that the respondents he directed to declare the award on the application filed by the petitioners under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and make payment of compensation of the award amount to the petitioners immediately. 2. The lands of the petitioners were sought to be acquired for the purpose of Manud-Kanthravi road project. In the Land Acquisition Case No. 74 of 1983, the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 2, Mehsana passed an order on 21st May, 1988 acquiring the lands in question and also ordered for award of the compensation. The petitioners herein did not prefer any application for reference under Section 18, but other land owners whose lands had also been acquired under the same notification in the same land acquisition proceedings, preferred applications see...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Rajya Dairy Karmacharisabha Vs. Managing Director
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-03-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3492
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Gujarat Rajya Dairy Karmachari Sabha - petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, and has challenged the Circular dated 8.7.1999 passed by Gujarat Dairy Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as `Corporation') in which Corporation has framed the changed/modified policy regarding voluntary retirement of their employees. The petitioner has challenged the said Circular as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under:2.1 Petitioner is a Union registered under the provisions of the Trade Union Act. The respondent No.1-Corporation is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent No.1-Corporation is a Government Company fully owned and controlled by the Government. The petitioner submitted that, as per the Memorandum & Articles of Association of the Company, all the shares ...
Tag this Judgment!Electrex (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-2001
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3331
S.K. Keshote, J.1. All these 9 Special Criminal Applications arise from9 criminal complaints filed by the respondent No. 2against the petitioners. The facts and parties arecommon in all 9 criminal complaints filed by respondentNo. 2 for conviction and sentence of the petitioners underSection 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1881') and as saidearlier the same proceed on identical facts. In fact theseparate criminal complaints are to be filed fordishonour of different cheques. The parties are commonand identical prayer has been made in these matters. Thegrounds raised for quashing and setting aside of thecriminal complaints are identical and the matters aretaken up for hearing together and are being decided bythis common order.2. The facts of the case are taken from the SpecialCriminal Application No. 132 of 2000. The firstpetitioner is a company incorporated under the CompaniesAct, 1956 having its registered office at 2121-DI, 2ndPhase, Peenya...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. MohiuddIn Kuresi @ Md. Moya and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC748
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. Heard the parties and peru : AIR1999SC2963 sed lower Court records. This appeal was preferred under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act by the Insurance Company against judgment and award dated 31.1.1992 passed in Compensation Case No. 166 of 1989. On 4.9.1999 a bus (BHV-8546) knocked one Md. Sahid Kuresi causing multiple injuries to him, which resulted into his death on the spot. Parents of the deceased along with his widow and three miner sons filed a case for compensation under the aforesaid Act, Both owner as well as insurer of the bus . filed written statement but only the insurer contested the case. Insurer's defence, inter alia, was that unless it was proved that bus was being plied in accordance with law and provisions of Motor Vehicles Act as well as the terms and conditions of insurance policy, insurer was not responsible to indemnify owner's liability. Order dated 13.1.1992 of the compensation case shows that both sides filed documents. Claimants' do...
Tag this Judgment!BipIn Shantilal Panchal (ii) Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR355
C.K. Buck, J.1. Rule. Service of Rule is waived by learned A.P.P. Mr. N.D. Gohil for respondent No. 1-State and learned Spl. P. P. Mr. D.N. Patel for respondent No. 2-Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I. for short) in both these applications.2. Both these Misc. Cri. Applications are preferred under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. praying bail by the petitioners-accused of Sessions Case No. 162 of 1994 pending in the Court of learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad. Since in both the applications similar points are involved, they are heard and disposed of by this common order.3. The petitioners of both these applications i.e. Misc. Cri. Application Nos. 6523 of 2000 and 1722 of 2001 are facing trial of the offences punishable under Sections 22 & 24 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 read with Section 120B of I.P.C. and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.D.P.S. Act' ). Both these petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Raju @ Bimaldas Sindhi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-2001
Reported in: (2002)2GLR1244
ORDER :-After the pronouncement of the aforesaid judgment, Ms. Shilpa Unwalla, learned Advocate for petitioner states that since the petitioner desires to take up me matter to the higher forum, the final order of this Court may be continued for a period of six weeks from today. After hearing Mr. K. G. Sheth, learned A.P.P., for State, the interim relief granted earlier is ordered to be continued for a period of six weeks from today i.e., 1-5-2001. D. S. permitted....
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Ellvina Samualbhai Christian
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR741]; (2001)3GLR2338
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, the petitioner of this petition has challenged the order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Annexure-'A' and also order of the Appellate Authority Annexure-'B' dated 5-7-2000 confirming the order of the Controlling Authority.2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are as under :The respondent was serving as Health Visitor in the New Chest Clinic T. B. Hospital owned by the petitioner. One Dr. Deshpande was In-charge of this hospital. The employees suffering from chest disease are entitled to have certificate of the Medical Officer in-charge of Chest Clinic. One Shri Mahendra Parikh complained the Deputy Municipal Commissioner regarding demand of Rs. 300-00 as illegal gratification by the respondent to have a certificate of Dr. Deshpande that the said person was suffering from Tuberculosis. A trap was arranged for the respondent and Dr. Deshpande on 18-12-1991. The trap proved successful. As...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »