Gujarat Court October 2002 Judgments
P.V. Josheph Christian Vs. Deenamma Josheph Christian
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-30-2002
Reported in: II(2004)DMC592; (2003)1GLR196
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. A short, but interesting question which has been put in focus, for our consideration and adjudication in this reference, under Section 17 of the Divorce Act, 1869 (the Act) by the District Court, Ahmedabad Rural at Mirzapur Court, arising out of Civil Suit No. 3 of 1997 instituted for dissolution of marriage under Section 10, on the ground of respondent-wife being guilty of adultery and passing of decree for dissolution of marriage is whether the factual profile and the evidence on record constitutes a legal launching pad for passing of decree for dissolution or not?2. In order to examine and satisfy our conscience, we have thought it expedient to have a close scrutiny of relevant and material factual matrix, giving rise to the reference under Section 17 of the Act, as it stood then before amendment. Short conspectus of facts, therefore, may be highlighted at this juncture.3. In this reference for confirmation of the decree for dissolution of marriage, arising out of a...
Tag this Judgment!Agriculture Produce Market Committee Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-30-2002
Reported in: (2003)4GLR3568
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule in both these petitions. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned A.G.P., appears for the respondent authority and waives service of notice of rule. Mr. Jhaveri, learned Counsel appears and waives for respondent No. 3 in Spl.C.A. No. 10454 of 2002 and Mr. Pahwa, learned Counsel appears and waives for respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in Spl.C.A. No. 10899 of 2002. With the consent of all the parties, these matters are taken up for final hearing today.2. Since the facts are common, questions involved are common and common order is under challenge in these petitions, they are dealt with by this common judgment.3. The short facts of the case are that one Mr. Govindji Ramjibhai Popat, respondent No. 3 in Spl.C.A. No. 10454 of 2002 was functioning as the Secretary of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Porbandar. On 23-1-2001, the said Mr. Govind Ramji had tendered his resignation. It is the case of Mr. Govind Ramji that he had withdrawn the resignation as per the communication dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashokkumar Amrutlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-29-2002
Reported in: (2003)4GLR3164
A.L. Dave, J.1. The appellant came to be convicted by Sessions Judge, Mehsana for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of I.P.C., by judgment and order rendered in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1999, on February 18, 2000. The appellant was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for offence punishable under Section 363 of I.P.C. He was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for offence punishable under Section 366 of I.P.C. He was also ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- for offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C. He was ordered to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month in the event of default in payment of fine. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts of the case in brief are that as per the prosecution case, the appellant and one Sitaben Fataji Ramsangji Thakor...
Tag this Judgment!Anita Bhandari Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-28-2002
Reported in: (2003)2GLR1093
B.J. Shethna, J. 1. Both these appeals and Civil Applications filed in it are disposed of by this common judgment as they are arising out of the judgment and order dated 28.10.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court (Coram : M.S. Shah, J.) in Special Civil Application No.8736 of 2002.2. As per the FIR lodged by Shri Mahendrabhai Kothawala on 4.4.2001 at about 1.45 p.m. Shri Sureshbhai Bhandari came on his scooter and parked it near Dena Bank, situated at Reshamwala Market, Surat. At that time, Shri Nagjibhai, Watchman of the bank requested him to park his scooter on the other side as it was causing obstruction in carrying cash box. Thereupon, Sureshbhai got angry and abused Shri Nagjibhai by his father. Nagjibhai told him not to abuse him as he is watchman of the Bank. Heated exchange of words took place between them, when they were going inside the bank. Nagjibhai was following Sureshbhai. That time he heard loud noise. He went inside and saw Sureshbhai lying profusely b...
Tag this Judgment!Anita Bhandari and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-28-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ2020; AIR2004Guj67
M.S. Shah, J. 1. Rule. Ms. P.J. Davawala, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Union of India and Mr. Prashant G. Desai, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 waive service of Rule. 2.1 Petitioner No. 1 is the widow and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are minor children (aged 9 and 2 years respectively) of late Shri Suresh M. Bhandari. The deceased was a Chartered Accountant practising at Surat. The deceased had also filed the income-tax return for the year ended on 31-3-2000 (AY 2000-2001) wherein his income from profession was shown as Rs. 2,21,610/-. 2.2 On 4-4-2001, the deceased had gone to Dena Bank, Surat for a Banking transaction but he was shot dead by Mr. Nagjibhai Kanjibhai Parmar, an employee of Dena Bank working as a security guard, which was a rash and reckless act in course of his employment. The deceased died on the spot on account of the fire-arm wound on the chest of the deceased. 2.3 It appears that on account of the tragic incident, the Bank on humanitarian groun...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal G. Siyal and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-28-2002
Reported in: (2003)2GLR1409
P.B. Majmudar, J. 1. The petitioners herein are the Ex-Councillors of Porbandar Nagarpalika. By filing this petition, they are challenging the order dated 3-9-2002, passed by the State Government, by which the Porbandar Municipality is ordered to be dissolved under the provisions of Section 263(1) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act and an Administrator is appointed to look after the affairs of the said Municipality. The aforesaid order of dissolving the said Municipality is passed on the ground that the Municipality has failed to discharge its duty. The proceedings were initiated by way of show-cause notice dated 6th June, 2002. The said show-cause notice was issued to the President of the Nagarpalika for the purpose of showing cause as to why proceedings under Section 263(1) of the Act should not be initiated against the Nagarpalika. In the said show-cause notice, eight grounds are mentioned for the purpose of initiating the proceedings under the said proviso. The grounds mentioned in ...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Heirs and Legal Rep. of D ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-28-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ1731; (2003)4GLR453
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Today, we have condoned the delay in filing the first appeal vide order passed in Civil Application No. 4744 of 2002, and the present appeal is taken up for hearing, with the consent of learned Advocate Ms.Roopal Patel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms.Megha Jani, appearing for respondent Insurance Company.2. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties.3. Admitted. Notice of admission is waived by learned Advocate Ms.Megha Jani appearing for the respondent Insurance Company.4. In the First Appeal, the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation ('Corporation' for short) has challenged the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.I), Ahmedabad (Rural), in M.A.C.Petition No. 1106 of 1990, dated 11th July 2001. It may be stated that the judgment and award is a composite one passed in all, ten M.A.C. Petitions. The Tribunal has partly allowed the petition, being M.A.C.Petition No.1106 of 1990 and declared that the applicants are enti...
Tag this Judgment!Nijrang Print Pack Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-28-2002
Reported in: 2005(184)ELT11(Guj)
ORDERA.R. Dave, J.1. Grievance which the petitioner-Company has ventilated in this petition is with regard to non-payment of refund of Rs. 2,27,964/- by the respondents. Facts giving rise to the present petition in a nutshell are as under.2. The petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,27,964/- by way of duty by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-IV. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The said appeal filed by the petitioner had been rejected by an order dated 30th March, 1993. Being aggrieved by the said order passed in Appeal, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the CEGAT. The CEGAT quashed and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30th March, 1993 by its order dated 11th April, 1998. As the petitioner had finally succeeded, the amount of Rs. 2,27,964/-, which was paid by the petitioner in pursuance of the demand made by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Ex...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Rameshbhai Parsottambhai ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-28-2002
Reported in: I(2006)ACC286
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Today, we have condoned the delay in filing the first appeal vide order passed in Civil Application No. 4744 of 2002, and the present appeal is taken up for hearing, with the consent of learned Advocate Ms. Roopal Patel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Megha Jarii, appearing for the respondent Insurance Company.2. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties.3. Admitted. Notice of admission is waived by learned Advocate Ms. Megha Jani appearing for the respondent Insurance Company.4.In the first appeal, the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation ('Corporation' for short) has challenged the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux. I), Ahmedabad (Rural), in M.A.C. Petition No. 1106 of 1990, dated 11.7.2001. It may be stated that the judgment and award is a composite one passed in all, ten M.A.C. petitions. The Tribunal has partly allowed the petition, being the M.A.C. Petition No. 1106 of 1990 and declared that applicants ar...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Pradesh Panchayat Parishad and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)1GLR633
ORDERS 17. The petitions are accordingly disposed of in terms of the above conclusions. Prayers (A) and (B) are rejected. As regards prayers (C), (CC) and (D) made by the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 1192 of 2002 and similar prayers in other petitions on the basis of the Resolution passed by the District Panchayat or on the basis of the orders passed by the President of the District Panchayat requiring the D.D.O. to place all the files before the President of the District Panchayat for consultation before taking any decision regarding any matters within the purview of the District Panchayat, the said orders are omnibus orders which are not in consonance with the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 as interpreted in this judgment, and therefore, the mandamus as prayed for in terms of Paras 6(C), (CC) and 6(D) in Special Civil Application No. 1192 of 2002 or similar reliefs prayed for in terms of para 6(E) in Special Civil Application Nos. 4995 and 4997 of 2002...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »