Gujarat Court October 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.
Essar Steel Ltd. Vs. Gramercy Emerging Market Fund
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-17-2002
Reported in: [2003]116CompCas248(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. These two appeals are directed against the common order of the learned Single Judge made on 20th March, 2002 rejecting the preliminary objection against the maintainability of the Company Petitions, by holding that the respondents - Original petitioners were the creditors and therefore, entitled to present the petitions and simultaneously directing that the Trustee should be joined as a party to these petitions. These two appeals have been heard finally at the request of both the sides.2. Both the appeals involve common points and have been argued together. Both the Company Petitions also involve common factual background and identical prayers. There were three Company Petitions heard together in which the common order was made. When these appeals were being heard, it was pointed out that the Company Petition No. 240 of 2001 was already withdrawn and in this view of the matter, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant stated that since the Company Petition N...
Jignesh Farshubhai Kakkad Vs. Director of Income Tax (investigations) ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Guj)220
A.R. Dave, J.1. Looking to the fact that both the petitioners are partners in M/s J.P. Finance, and as facts of both the petitions are similar, at the request of the learned advocates, both the petitions are heard together.2. Looking to the facts of the case, rule is issued in both the petitions. Shri M.R. Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the Central Government, appears for the respondents in both the petitions and waives service of rule. At the request of the learned advocates, both the petitions are finally heard today.3. The petitioners in both the petitions challenge the validity of an authorization issued by the Addl. Director of IT (Inv.). Ahmedabad, in favour of respondent No. 2 dt. 21st June, 2002, under the provisions of Section 132 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')4. It has been submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that the Addl. Director of IT is not competent to issue such an authorization because such an authorization can...
Maniben Mohanbhai Vanker Vs. Shri Narayan Pottery Works
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)4GLR145
K.A. Puj, J. 1. The present Civil Revision Applications are filed against the order dated 5th January 2001 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in P.S.R.P. No. 7 to 20 and 23 of 1997. There were in all 15 matters before the trial court, out of which in 4 matters, being PSRP No. 9/97, 10/97, 12/97 and 13/97, the respondents had not resisted the application by filing the reply and out of remaining 11 matters, the present Civil Revision Applications are in respect of 5 original-respondents/present petitioners. Since common issues are involved in all the 5 petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Since the common issues were framed and common evidence was recorded in PSRP No. 7/97, which gives rise to the Civil Revision Application No. 319 of 2001, the facts were taken from the said petition.2. The facts, giving rise to the present petition, are as under :The respondent, who is the original-applicant, in all the applications before the learned Ju...
Toxic Links Vs. Chemie Organics
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)4GLR705
K.A. Puj, J. 1. The present revision application is filed against the order passed by the ld. Civil Judge (SD) Valsad on 31.7.2000 in an application below ex. 24 in Special Civil Suit No. 195 of 1997 whereby the application filed by the present petitioner/defendant no. 4 for dismissal of the suit for non compliance of the order dated 31.3.1999 passed by the ld. Civil Judge (SD) Valsad in an application under Order 6 Rule 5 of CPC seeking further and better particulars from the present respondents no. 1 to 3-ori. plaintiffs, is rejected.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision application are as under:3. That the respondent no. 4 in the present revision application who is the original defendant no. 1 had allegedly published a report in November 1996 Authored by Mr. Bob Edward and Dr.David Santillo on the chlorine Industry and its related pollution entitled 'The Stranger'. The respondent no. 1 being one of the firsts producing Chlorine etc. was mentioned in the said report....
Surat Municipal Corporation Vs. Chhotubhai D. Vashi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-14-2002
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR478]; (2003)4GLR980
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Heard Mr.Nirav Chokshi with Mr.Prashant Desai, learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.H.N.Sompura, learned appearing on behalf of the respondent.2. In the present petition, the petitioner - Surat Municipal Corporation has challenged the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Reference [IT] No.54/88 dated 21st September, 1993. The Industrial Tribunal, Surat has set aside the punishment order dated 18th April, 1987 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Surat imposing punishment of stoppage of five increments with permanent effect and the Tribunal has directed to pay difference and arrears of salary on account of setting aside the punishment order in question to the respondent workman within period of one month from the date of publication of the award.3. Learned advocate Mr.Nirav Chokshi appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the respondent workman was working as Head Inspector in the Water Tax Department of the petitioner Corp...
Jagdishchandra Bhulabhai Patel (Decd.) Through His Heirs Rekhaben and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)1GLR789
K.A. Puj, J. 1. The present Civil Revision Application (C.R.A.) is filed against an order passed by the learned District Judge, Surat, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1992 on 1-12-2001 reversing the order passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Surat, on 25-2-1992 in an application below Exhs. 5 and 24 filed by the original-plaintiffs and in application below Exh. 59 filed by the original-defendant No. 4 in Regular Civil Suit No. 906 of 1991. By virtue of that order, the injunction prayed for by the application below Exh. 24 was granted and the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 were restrained from entering or trespassing into the disputed property till the final disposal of the suit. The present Civil Revision Application is filed by the original-defendant No. 4 who was not initially joined as a party in the suit, but subsequently under an order passed below Exh. 23, the present petitioner was joined as defendant No. 4 in the said suit. The present respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are the origi...
Vithalbhai Biharilal Patel Since Deced. Thro. His Heirs Vs. Heirs of D ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)4GLR635
R.M. Doshit, J.1. This Revision Application arises from the judgment and order dated 26th December, 1994 passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1991. The petitioners before this Court are the Appellants-Plaintiffs.2. The plaintiffs instituted H.R.P Suit No. 920 of 1983 in the Court of Small Causes, Ahmedabad for decree for recovery of possession of the suit premises. The suit premises is a room in a residential house named as 'Sahajanand Bhuvan' situated at Maninagar, Ahmedabad. The plaintiffs claimed recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground, inter alia, of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed that they had a large family of themselves and two grown-up sons; one of them was a married son with a family of his own. The plaintiffs and all their family members were residing in the same building in two rooms; that having regard to the number of members of their ...
Rawal Shayar Surajmal and ors. Vs. Gujarat University and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)4GLR3144
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr. Mitul Shelat, learned Counsel waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1, Mr. V.K. Bhatt, learned Counsel waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 2 and Mr. Sompura, learned A.G.P. waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 3.2. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties. With the consent of all the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.3. The short facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are students are aspirant to study B.C.A. course. When the advertisement was issued by Centralised Admission Committee of the University for giving admission to B.C.A. course, they did not apply pursuant to the same. The details given on behalf of the University shows that there are 1881 seats of B.C.A., which includes free seats and payment seats available in all self-financed colleges and other colleges affiliated to Gujarat University. For the purpose of filling up all the said seats, 19...
Saraswati Education Trust Vs. District Education Officer and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Guj199
ORDERJayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Ms. Manisha Shah, Ld. AGP appearing of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 waives service of rule. With the consent of parties matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner against the order, dated 14-6-02, passed by the Commissioner, Madhyanna Bhojan whereby the permission to open XIth standard (General stream) in Hindi is declined and the petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the State Govt. dated 6-8-02 whereby the appeal against the aforesaid order is dismissed.3. In my view it is not necessary for this Court to examine other aspects of the case since one of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding non-speaking order passed by the appellate authority has considerable force. The perusal of the order, dated 6-8-02 passed by the appellate authority shows that no reasons, whatsoever, have been given, and therefore, the order can be said to be non-speaking order.4. The Ld. AGP appearing...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chintharbhai Sibabhai, Guardian of Min ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ839; (2004)3GLR2018
H.K. Rathod, J.1. The Apex Court has observed, in paragraph 12 of the decision in the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 that :'12. In its very nature whenever a Tribunal or a Court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards.'2. Heard learned Advocates Ms.Megha Jani appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr.Nirzar Desai appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-claimant.3. Admitted. Notice of admission is waived by Mr.Nirzar Desai appearing on behalf of respondent No.1.4. At the time of hearing the application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal, we have considered the merits of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Bhavnagar and therefore, with the consent of both ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »