Gujarat Court August 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
ibrahim Haji Akbarali Ghaswala Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3239
H.K. Rathod, J.Rule. Service of rule is waived by Mr. H.L.Jani, learned APP appearing for the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. C.L. Soni for the petitioner and Mr. H.L. Jani, the learned APP for the respondents. In this petition, the petitioner is challenging two orders. The first order challenged by the petitioner is dated 15.3.2000 passed by the Dy. Conservator of Forests, Chhota Udepur and the second order challenged by the petitioner is dated 25.5.2000 passed by the Sessions Judge, Baroda in appeal no. 21 of 2000.2. Learned advocate Mr. Soni appearing for the petitioner has challenged both the orders inter alia on the ground that the notice dated 5.10.1999 has been given by the Range Forest Officer who is not an authorized officer and no reasonable opportunity has been given to the petitioner prior to the passing the orders which are adverse to the petitioner by the Deputy Conserva...
Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. Electricity Mazdoor Sabha
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3456
D.H. Waghela, J. 1. This petition, styled as a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, in reality, seeks to challenge the award and order of the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad, which are made in Reference (IC) No.5 of 1993 and in Review Application No.6 of 1999. After issuance of notice and grant of interim relief on 18.1.2000, the petition was adjourned from time to time and, by consent of the parties, it was taken up for final hearing and disposal.2. The dispute brought before the Industrial Court by way of a reference under Section 73-A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, after failure of the conciliation, was, according to the terms of reference, related to and based on the demand of preparation of seniority lists of all the workmen showing the post and categorywise seniority of the employees employed in several sections, departments and offices or zones of the petitioner Company. After pendency of the reference for six years and the elaborate evidence adduced on ...
Kanooni Salah Kendra Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-04-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR505
M. S. Shah, J.1. Rule. Service of rule is waived by Mr. H. H. Sompura, learned A.G.P., for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. H. J. Shah, learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 3-4.2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, Kanooni Salah Kendra at Ahwa in Dangs District has challenged Resolution No. 210 dated 23-3-1999 of the Dangs District Panchayat. For the last about 25 years, prior to the date of the said resolution, the Dangs District Panchayat was running the scheme of arranging programs for propagating social welfare schemes of the Central and State Government and of the District Panchayat for the tribals in the Dangs District in the fields of prohibition, family planning, afforestation, child marriage restraint and adult education. It appears that two parties called Kalapathak and Powada were earlier entrusted staging such performances for propagating the aforesaid ideas before the tribals in the Dangs District. These parties would travel from village to village and r...
Mehsana District Central Co-operative Bank Limited and anr. Vs. Electi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR774
K.M. Mehta, J.1. The Mehsana District Central Co-operative Bank Limited and others-petitioners have filed this petition challenging (originally) the order dated 5-7-2001 passed by the Election Officer of the said bank having its office at Mehsana-respondent No. 1 which relates to elections of the Board of Directors of the first petitioner-Bank. The said order has been passed in pursuance of the objections raised by respondent Nos. 8 to 11, namely. Dr. C. J. Chavda, Patel Shankerbhai Bhikhabhai, Chaudhary Mahadevbhai Veljibhai, Patel Babulal Raichanddas against the provisional voters' list. The said order has been challenged on various grounds including the same is contrary to provisions of Co-operative Societies Act and Rules and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have by amendment also challenged Notification dated 7-7-2001 issued under Rule 16 also on similar grounds.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under :2.1 The first petit...
Gandhidham Mercantile Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Narsinhbhai Atmaram Agrawal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: (2002)2GLR1060
ORDER23. In view of the above discussion, the petitions are allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 12-10-2000 passed by the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal in the stay applications in Revision Application Nos. 241 and 245 of 2000 are quashed and set aside. The petitioners shall accordingly be at liberty to proceed with the elections to the Board of Directors of the petitioner-Bank in accordance with the re-scheduled election programme which shall be published hereafter. The petitioners may proceed to hold the elections to the Board of Directors of the petitioner-Bank on the basis of the list of eligible candidates as notified by the Election Officer on 1-9-2000.24. Rule in each petition is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.25. Since the petitions are allowed, the Civil Applications for vacating the interim stay do not survive and are hereby dismissed.The record and proceedings be returned to the Board of Nominees and the Tribunal.At this stage,...
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Meghajibhai Sanabhai Bhimsuriya
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2072
J.R. Vora, J.1. Admit. Learned Advocate Mr. M. B. Gandhi for the respondents waives service.2. These Appeals From Orders are filed against an order of City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, below Application Exh. 5 in Civil Suit Nos. 1280 of 1996, 4509 of 1996, 1262 of 1996 and 1397 of 1996. In each of the above suits, on notice of motion, below Exhs. 5 and 6, learned City Civil Judge passed order on 20th November, 2000, allowing the Notice of Motion in each of the above said suits confirming the relief of status quo granted at ad interim stage till final hearing of the suit. Since all the four orders which are impugned are similar and the same and each of the above said order in all 4, these 4 Appeals From Orders are preferred, all these Appeal From Orders were heard together and are being disposed of with this common judgment and order.3. The short fact of the case is that in all about 32 plaintiffs filed above said four civil suits in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad for declaration and perm...
Umakant S. Deshpande Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ21Guj
ORDERP.B. Majmudar, J.1. All these Letters Patent Appeals are filed against a common judgment of the learned single Judge dated May 10, 2000, by which the learned single Judge disposed of a group of Special Civil Applications by a common order. So far as L.P.A. No. 346 of 2001 is concerned, the same is filed by the party-in-person U. S. Deshpande and the remaining Letters Patent Appeals are filed by advocate Mr. N.K. Thakkar. We have heard at length the party-in-person as well as Mr. N.K. Thakkar. Mr. Thakkar has given written submissions which are also taken on record.2. The main question which is required to be decided in these Letters Patent Appeals is whether Accounts Officers under the Electricity Board fall within the definition of 'workman', as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, by its judgment and Award dated July 15, 1988, decided that the Accounts Officers are 'workmen', within the meaning of the Industrial Dis...
State of Gujarat Vs. Satish Himmatlal Rupareliya
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3650
A.L. Dave, J. 1. This Confirmation Case and the Criminal Appeals arise out of a judgment and order rendered by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No.56 of 1995, on April 18, 2000, convicting the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Sections 120B and 398 of 135 of the Bombay Police Act and, sentencing accused Nos. 1 and 2 with capital punishment. Accused No.3 was convicted for offence punishable with Section 201 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and afine of Rs.2000/- and, in event of default in payment offine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a furtherperiod of six months.2. A First information Report came to be lodged withShahibaug Police Station on October 22, 1994, at about18.00 hours by one Jagdishbhai Govindbhai Brahmbhatt, whohappened to be the Manager of Neelam Hotel, situate nearBaliya Limbdi, on Civil Hospital Road, Ahmedabad.2.1 As per the F.I.R....
Rabari Pirabhai Valabhai and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-01-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR422
Kundan Singh, J.1. This petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 29th April, 1993 in Revision Application No. TEN.B.A. 189 of 1993 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, judgment and order dated 4th May, 1990 passed by the Deputy Collector, Palanpur in Ceiling Appeal No. 1 of 1990 and the decision dated 15th October, 1981 of the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. in Ceiling Case No. 941 of 1976.2. During the proceedings Under Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in Case No. 1941 of 1976, it was found that the petitioner No. 2 was holding agricultural land admeasuring 52 acres and 22 gunthas in his own name and 11 acres and 37 gunthas of land in me name of the petitioner No. 2 and two sisters. Thus, the petitioner No. 2 was holding 64 acres and 19 gunthas of agricultural land. In the inquiry under the provisions of Section 16 of the Act, the Mamlatdar and A.L.T., Deesa found 19 acres and 19 gunthas as surplus l...
Jay Mahakali Rolling Mill Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-01-2001
Reported in: 2002(143)ELT279(Guj)
M.R. Calla, J.1. The Petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai passed on 14-7-2001 and received on 26-7-2001 in Application E/S/474/2001-Mum. in Appeal E/475/2001-Mum.2. Heard learned Counsel.3. The Appeal came up before the CEGAT on the stay Application against the collection of Rs. 61,444/-. The Appeal itself was taken up for hearing and the same has been dismissed. The petitioner herein had filed an Appeal before the CEGAT stating that when the proposal to change was made with effect from 17-8-1999 by letter dated 9-74999 the Department ought to have accepted it. The case of the petitioner was that the duty could not be demanded as per the show cause notice. It is the admitted position that the said letter dated 9-7-1999 had not been received by Assistant Commissioner until October, 1999. The letter written by the assessee was received by the Assistant Commissioner's office on 18-10-1999 and by...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »