Gujarat Court June 2001 Judgments
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Thakorbhai Zinabhai Garas ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-2001
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ176Guj
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. Rule. Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the Respondent.2. The Special Civil Application is filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), challenging the award passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCV) No. 610 of 1996 dated November 30, 1999, whereby the penalty imposed by the Petitioner Corporation on the Respondent workman of dismissal by an order dated July 7, 1994 was quashed and set aside and reinstatement was granted without awarding back wages. Mr. A.M. Dagli, learned advocate for the Petitioner Corporation submitted that the Respondent workman was in the habit of remaining absent without permission. However, the Labour Court having taken into consideration the contentions of both the sides came to the conclusion that it will be in the interest of justice, if reinstatement is granted without awarding backwages. The discretion exercised by the learned Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Nareshkumar Manilal Parmar Vs. Ongc Ltd. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-19-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR528]; (2001)IILLJ919Guj
ORDERJ.M. Panchal, J.1. By filing this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellants have challenged legality of judgment dated April 24, 2001 rendered by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9381 of 2000 as well as in Civil Application No 2923 of 2001 by which prayers made by the appellants (1) to declare that the employment of the appellant No. 1 on contractual basis is unconstitutional; and (2) to declare that the appellant No. 1 has acquired temporary status in the services of the respondents as pharmacist and is entitled to all the benefits including time scale of pay and other perks at par with the permanent regular employees of the respondents, are rejected.2. Before September, 1999, appellant No. 1 was working as pharmacist of a contractor who was engaged by the respondent to provide labour. During the year 1998, three sanctioned posts had fallen vacant in dispensary being run by the respondent, and therefore, the Administrative Officer, ONGC...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Rajkot Municipal Corporation Vs. Geetaben Anilkumar Tank ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-19-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR150]
Ravi R. Tripathi1. The present petition is filed by the Commissioner, Rajkot Municipal Corporation, Rajkot, challenging the award dated 16.8.2000, passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No.674 of 1992, whereby the learned Judge ordered reinstatement of the respondent workman to her original post with continuity of service along with 40% back wages and cost of Rs.500/-.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent workman was appointed as an apprentice as per order dated 27.9.1988 and her training period was upto 30.9.1989. It so happened that the respondent workman was assigned the work of 'typing' pertaining to tenders of construction department. On completion of the apprenticeship for working of the Legal Department, the present respondent workman was given appointment from 30.9.1989 to 28.2.1990. In the meantime, to good luck of the respondent workman, the petitioner corporation was assigned the census work by a letter d...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Kalidas Kuberbhai Machhi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-19-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR928]
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. 1. The State of Gujarat, through the Executive Engineer to the Civil Store, Irrigation Sub Division No. 24 at Rajpipla, District : Narmada, has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Bharuch, in Reference (LCB) No. 25/1990, which was the new number given to the earlier Reference bearing No. Reference (LCV) No. 378/1984. The learned Judge, by the impugned award, directed the present petitioner to reinstate three persons, namely, Kalidas Kuberbhai Machhi, Bachubhai Chhaganbhai Vasava and Kanchanbhai Amrabhai Vasava, on their original posts with 40% back-wages and also costs of Rs. 250/- to the applicants of that Reference.2. Mr. R.V. Desai, learned AGP appearing for the petitioner, invited the attention of the Court to the fact that written statement was filed before the Court below by Exh.11, in which it was specifically pleaded that the respondents-workmen were daily wager Chowkidars at the rate of Rs. 9-90 ps. per day for discharging their duties during ...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshkumar Bhaverlal JaIn Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4069
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. These appeals arise out of the judgement andorder passed by the learned Additional City SessionsJudge, Ahmedabad on 2nd January 1990 in Sessions Case No.296 of 1988, convicting the original accused No.1(appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 1990) for theoffences under sections 302, 201, 363, 343, 343, 364, 365 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him toimprisonment for life for the offence under section 302 of the IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment of sixmonths for each of the other offences which were to runconcurrently, and imposing a fine of Rs.200=00, indefault, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.The State has appealed (Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 1990)for enhancement of the sentence praying for imposition ofdeath sentence on the original accused No.1 on the groundthat this was a rarest of rare cases warranting deathpenalty as the said accused No.1 / appellant hadcommitted a cold-blooded murder of his two young cousinsaged 4 yea...
Tag this Judgment!Jaymal Thakore Vs. Charity Commissioner, Gujarat State and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Guj279; (2001)3GLR2124
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J. 1. The petitioner is a Chartered Accountant and in his professional capacity claims a right to represent his clients both as 'recognised agent' and a 'Pleader' under a duly executed power of Attorney in his favour in proceedings before the Charity Commissioner under Section 50A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which admittedly is applicable to the State of Gujarat.2. This case was to be heard and decided by the learned single Judge, but finding that the question involved is of some general importance, it has been referred for decision by the Division Bench.3. In exercise of powers under Section 50A of the Act, the Charity Commissioner is empowered to frame and settle a scheme of management of a public trust after giving opportunity of hearing to the trustees and by public notice to the beneficiaries. Under sub-section(4) of Section 50A, after hearing the parties and recording evidence, a scheme framed and settled for m...
Tag this Judgment!AlwIn Laurence Meendonsa Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-2001
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3240
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Ahmedabad is one of the top ten big cities of the country. There were serious complaints about rampant corruption in the Police Department itself. Police Inspector Shri K.M.Rathod specially designated with the Anti-corruption Branch was assigned special duty to check the corruption in the Police Department itself. For that purpose Shri Rathod alongwith the members of the raiding party intercepted one truck near Visat Petrol Pump near Sabarmati on the road going towards ONGC Colony. Driver of a truck who was going towards Maharashtra was explained the purpose for which he was stopped for trapping corrupt Police constables posted at the Traffic points of Ahmedabad. He was given currency notes of Rs. 65 of different denominations with the enthracine powder poured on it. When they reached alongwith the members of the raiding party including PI Shri Rathod towards Narol, the appellant accused - Alwin Laurence Mendonsa was on duty as a Traffic Police Constable. He had dema...
Tag this Judgment!Jaymal Thakore Vs. Charity Commissioner
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-2001
Reported in: [2001]118TAXMAN264(Guj)
Dharmadhikari, C.J.The petitioner is a Chartered Accountant and in his professional capacity claims a right to represent his clients both as recognised agent and a pleader under a duly executed power of attorney in his favour in proceedings before the Charity Commissioner under section 50A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (the Act) which admittedly is applicable to the State of Gujarat.2. This case was to be heard and decided by the learned Single Judge, but finding that the question involved is of some general importance, it has been referred for decision by the Division Bench.3. In exercise of powers under section 50A, the Charity Commissioner is empowered to frame and settle a scheme of management of a public trust after giving opportunity of hearing to the trustees and by public notice to the beneficiaries. Under sub-section (4) of section 50A, after bearing the parties and recording evidence, a scheme framed and settled for management of the trust by the Charity Commissioner i...
Tag this Judgment!Mangilal Uderam and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-15-2001
Reported in: (2002)2GLR1350
D.C. Srivastava, J. 1. This Revision is directed against an order dated 17-6-1999 of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Choryasi Prant, Surat directing the revisionist to remove pakka compound wall 2 ft. high above the road level on the road side constructed on Block No. 992/A situated at village Kosat, Tal. Choryasi, Dist. Surat, within 2 days of the final order.2. Ms. Kalpana J. Brahmbhatt, learned Counsel for the Revisionist and Shri H.H. Patel, learned A.P.P., for the respondents have been heard.3. The contention of Ms. Kalpana Brahmbhatt is that impugned order is liable to be set aside as it is illegal and not in compliance of the provision of Section 133 of Criminal Procedure Code, whereas learned A.P.P., contended that the provisions of Section 133 Cr.P.C. have been duly observed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate hence no interference in the revision is required. I have gone through the impugned order contained in Annexure-G as well as show-cause notice contained in Annexure-E. A...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mormasji Mancharji Vaid
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-15-2001
Reported in: [2001]250ITR542(Guj)
B.C. Patel, J.1. In view of the order made by the Division Bench of this court on September 21, 1995, referring the matter to a larger Bench and in view of the order made by the Chief Justice on March 29, 2000, this matter is placed before this larger Bench.2. Before reverting to the question of law, in the instant case it would be most appropriate to refer to the facts of the case.3. There was a transaction of lease-hold rights in the property in question and not a sale of ownership rights. A document dated August 3, 1968, purporting to create only leasehold rights was admitted to be of no value as the transaction was entered into without the written consent of the owner of the building, i.e., the original lessor. It seems that after some time, the consent of the owner of the property, i.e., the original lessor was obtained and the lessee (the assessee) executed a lease deed on October 13, 1973, transferring lease-hold rights in favour of the transferee. The Tribunal has recorded a fi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »