Gujarat Court January 2002 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.
Galiabhai Dipaktara Vs. Managing Director and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: III(2002)ACC691
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. In this appeal, notice was issued to the respondents for summary disposal. The respondents are served and have appeared through their learned Counsel.2. Appeal is admitted. Learned Counsel, Mr. K.J. Macwan for M/s. Trivedi and Gupta, waives service of notice in the appeal on behalf of the respondents.3. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, at the instance of the original applicant-workman, challenging the judgment and award dated April 29, 2000, of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation wherein no interest has been awarded. It is understood that refusal, to award any penalty is not the subject matter in the present appeal.4. As aforesaid, the short question in the present appeal is whether the original applicant-workman was entitled to any interest on the amount of compensation awarded to him under the provisions of Section 4-A or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 [prior to its amendment in 1995].5. On a plain read...
Samjuben Bhikhabhai Vs. Koli Lalji Naku
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-13-2002
Reported in: I(2001)ACC383; 2001ACJ56; (2000)1GLR742
M.R. Calla, J. 1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhavnagar in M.A.C. Case No. 64 of 1977 decided on 2.2.1979 whereby it has been ordered that the claimants may recover a sum of Rs.39,000/- from the opponents nos.1 and 2, i.e. respondents nos.1 and 2 in this appeal. The interest has been granted at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realisation with proportionate costs. The application was dismissed against the Insurance Company and directions have also been issued for apportionment of the total amount to the respective applicants-claimants.2. On 16th April 1977, deceased Bhikhabhai was travelling in a public career truck with an aluminium container containing 2 kg. of Ghee therein to be sold at Mahuva. The truck driver was paid the amount of hire for the goods as well as the travel of the deceased himself. The respondent no.1 herein was the driver and the alleg...
Revaben Wd/O. Chimanlal Gopaldas and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)2GLR1530
K.A. Puj, J. 1. Since common point is involved in Special Civil Application Nos. 3623 of 1983 and 3224 of 1987 and since Special Civil Application No. 1844 of 1987 is a cross-petition arising out of the judgment and order of learned Assistant Judge, Surat, against which the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 3224 of 1987 has also filed the petition before this Court, all the three petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. The facts stated hereinafter are taken from the Special Civil Application No. 3623 of 1983.2. Heard the learned Advocates of the respective parties and perused the pleadings and the materials and evidence placed on record.3. In Special Civil Application No. 3623 of 1983, the petitioners have sought for a declaration from this Court to the effect that provisions contained in Part III of Appendix-I to the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as unconstitutional and ultra vires. Th...
Hiralal Motibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2781; (2002)4GLR2949
C.K. Buch, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Pancholi learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.2. Heard Mr. Shaurin Shah learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Pancholi learned APP for the respondent-State.3. By means of filing this application under sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. the petitioners have prayed for quashing the crime registered against them in the Bharuch A-Division Police Station for the offence punishable under sec. 143, 147, 304 of IPC vide CR No. I-238/2001.4. Considering the facts reflected from the FIR, learned APP Mr. Pancholi has resisted this petition mainly on two points. The first submission of Mr. Pancholi is that this is a case wherein a person who was going to cast his vote in the democratic country was assaulted and this is a case wherein a person is died because of the assault made on him and the petitioners had approached for bail before the competent court and being unsuccessful have attempted to get the crime quashed by filing this application. Whil...
Suryaprasad Dinbandhu Vyas Vs. Ahmedabad Dhobi Panch Trust
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)4GLR728
Sharad Dave, J.1. Rule. LAs for the respondents waives the service of rule. With the consent of the LAs for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.2. The only question which arises for my consideration is as under:- While filing Revision Application under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whether the Trial Court's written order should be produced on record or oral say of the Trial Court can be the basis of Revision?3. It is pertinent to note that, the petitioner/applicant is original defendant whereas present opponents are the original plaintiffs who filed Civil Suit No. 5388 of 1985, before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad for recovery of possession of the premises, which, according to the original plaintiffs (present respondents) was trespassed by the applicant (Original defendant). It is the case of the petitioner herein that, the present opponents have filed one HRP Suit No. 3017 of 1985, before the Small causes Court at Ahmedabad for recovery of possession of ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sardar Steel Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(83)ECC868; 2005(184)ELT346(Guj)
ORDERR.K. Abichandani, J.1. All these matters raise identical points since they arise from an identical order of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunals, Mumbai made in a group of appeals on 30th August 2000. According to the applicant, the question of law arises as to the scope of Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Hot-Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 in context of fixation of annual capacity of production.2. The Tribunal disposed of the appeals by remanding the matter. In the process, it observed that the question involved in the appeals, as regarding the determination of the annual capacity of production of Excise Act read with the Notification No. 32/97, was no longer res integra, since the Tribunal had, in the earlier decisions in Awadh Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut reported in [1999 (112) E.L.T. 719 (Tri.) = 1999 (33) RLT 968] and in Bellary Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE, Belgaum, reported in 2000 (39) RLT 701, held that the annual capacity wa...
Municipal Corporation of the City of Surat Vs. B.M. Transport and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Guj306; (2002)2GLR1591
B.C. Patel, J. 1. Appellant-Municipal Corporation of City of Surat (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Corporation') has preferred these appeals against the common judgment delivered by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application Nos. 8482, 6859, 6835 and 7631 of 1990 on 1-2-1996. 2. The original petitioners who are respondents in these appeals except the Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the I.O.C.') were transporters and were engaged in transporting the products of I.O.C. through their tankers. While transporting the products of the I.O.C., drivers of the tankers were required to pass through the limits of the Corporation and the Corporation was thus entitled to levy the octroi. In the case of export of the same material, the Corporation was duty-bound to refund the amount. However, to make the procedure easy and to facilitate the transporters, it seems that the Commissioner of the Corporation exercised powers under the provisions contained in Bom...
Gujarat State Co-op. Land Development Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. Dy. Secre ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR596
P.B. Majmudar, J. 1. Petitioner No. 1 is a Co-operative Land Development Bank. Respondents 2 to 4 were given a loan, totalling to Rs. 78,800/- and the said respondents had executed a registered mortgage deed, dated 17-10-1975. Respondents 2 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount back to the Bank with interest. Respondents 2 to 4 thereafter failed to pay up the aforesaid amount. The Bank, therefore, initiated proceedings to recover the said amount as land revenue and petitioner No. 1 also received a certificate from the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies under Section 139 of the Act. The said certificate was forwarded to petitioner No. 2 for the purpose of effecting recovery. It is not in dispute that respondents 2 to 4 were served with various notices, as required by the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and the Rules. Thereafter, petitioner No. 2, who is the Special Recovery Officer, held a public auction on 4-5-1985. Under the said auction, agricultu...
Gopi Cinema Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Guj296
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Gopi Cinema, petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 10th February, 1988, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Entertainment Tax. Gandhinagar Division at Annexure 'C', order dated 9th August, 1988, passed by the Entertainment Tax Collector, District Kheda at Annexure 'D' and also the order passed by Commissioner of Entertainment Tax, Gujarat State, dated 7th February, 1989 and also the notice dated 27th February, 1989, issued by Deputy Commissioner, Entertainment Tax, Gandhinagar Division, stating that if the payment of entertainment tax Rs. 48.745/- is not paid the property may be taken auction in this behalf.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under :--2.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm. The petitioner runs the business of exhibiting moves in cinema theatre known as Gopi Cinema in the town of Anand, District Kheda. It is a case of petitioner that the petitioner received a notice dated 8-12-1987 issued by Deputy Commissioner, E...
Food Corporation of India Vs. Gandhidham Municipality
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)2GLR917
Jayant Patel, J. 1. The present appeal is preferred against the order, dated 17-8-1994 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court (Coram : A. P. Ravani, J.), in Special Civil Application No. 12701 of 1993 whereby the petition came to be rejected. The Division Bench of this Court had admitted this appeal on 24-11-1994 and it is reported to us that pending this appeal the appellant-Corporation has continued to pay the Municipal taxes to the respondent-Municipality. 2. On behalf of the appellant-Corporation Mr. N. K. Pahwa for Mr. P. M. Thakkar raised the contention that the Food Corporation of India, being an instrumentality of the State Government, is not liable to pay Municipal taxes in view of Article 285 of the Constitution. This contention in substance, is that the land was originally owned by Government of India and the said land is given to the appellant-Corporation for the purpose of construction of godowns and the appellant-Corporation is a statutory Corporation, no doubt,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »