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.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chintharbhai Sibabhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: (2004)2GLR2018
H.K. Rathod, J.1. The Apex Court has observed, in Paragraph 12 of the decision in the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in : [1995]1SCR75 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. Admitted. Notice of admission is waived by Mr. Nirzar Desai appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1.3. 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 die Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Bhavnagar, and therefore, with the consent of both the l...
N.D. Dawda Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR702
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the protection of his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner first entered into service with the respondent-Board as Lineman on 18th July, 1959. In course of time, he was promoted from time to time and was last holding the post of Junior Engineer.3. There is no controversy that at the time of appointment of the petitioner the date of birth recorded in the service book was 3rd December, 1936. However, the petitioner gave an application to the Superintending Engineer on 24th August, 1963 for correction of his birth date as entered in his service book, and to alter the same from 3rd December, 1936 to 8th October, 1938.4. There is no controversy that the original entry in the service book made at the point of time when the petitioner joined the service of the respondent-Board was based upon the date o...
Durlabhbhai Manibhai Naik and ors. Vs. Bhikhubhai Keshavbhai @ Keshurb ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Guj100; (2003)1GLR763
MISS R.M. Doshit, J. 1. These two applications have been preferred by the petitioners in the Revision Application. The revision petitioners are landlords who sought possession of the suit premises on the ground that the suit premises was required reasonably and bona fide by the landlords. The landlords failed in both the Courts below- Feeling aggrieved, they have preferred the above Revision Application No. 1743 of 1985. 2. Pending the said Revision Application, the petitioners have taken out above Civil Application No. 218 of 1986 for permission to amend the plaint. It is stated that since the dismissal of the suit all the sons of the tenant had acquired alternative accommodation. The applicants, had therefore, become entitled to seek recovery of possession of the suit premises under Section 13(1)(1) of the Rent Act. The applicants have, therefore, prayed that they be permitted to amend the plaint and to claim recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground of suitable accom...
Vijayaben Parshottam Kotak Vs. Parshottam Kotak
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: (2003)1GLR911
K.A. Puj, J.1. The present revision application is filed against the order passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Jamnagar on 22-4-2002 in Misc. Civil Application No. 62 of 1997 allowing the said application and directing the petitioner-wife to hand over the custody of two minor sons namely Kishor @ Kanaiyalal and Himanshu to the respondent-husband within one month from the date of the said order. It is further directed that the respondent-husband should call upon the petitioner-wife to come back to Porbandar and invite her to live together with him and two minor sons. If the petitioner-wife refused to stay with the respondent-husband at Porbandar than petitioner-wife has liberty to meet her two minor sons on each occasion at the house of the respondent-husband at Porbandar. The respondent-husband was further directed to pay the regular maintenance to the petitioner-wife as per the order of the Court passed in Misc. Criminal Application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.2. The br...
Dipika Arvindkumar Pancholi Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Guj102
ORDERA.M. Kapadia, J. 1. By means of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner challenges the action of respondent No. 2, that is, the Registrar of Births & Deaths Registration Department, Navsari Municipality, in not acceding to the request of the petitioner in registering her name in the Birth Certificate by misinterpreting the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 ('the Act' for short) and the Gujarat Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Rules, 1985 ('the Rules' for short) and, therefore, prayed to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by directing the respondent-authorities to register the name of the petitioner in the Births Register in Column No. 1 of the Birth Certificate at Annexure-C to the petition by declaring the action and interpretation of the respondent-authorities to be illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.2. The facts leading to the fi...
Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: (2003)1GLR158; (2003)ILLJ1066Guj
Akshay H. Mehta, J.1. In this petition several controversies are involved, but the main controversy is which is the 'appropriate Government' under Section 2(1)(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in relation to respondent No. 2 i.e. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'IFFCO'). Rest of the controversies are incidental. To resolve these controversies, certain relevant facts are required to be stated. They are as under :-2. IFFCO is a co-operative society. It was initially formed under the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act and after repeal of the said Act under the provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act. Its area of operation extends to the whole of the Indian Union. The main objects for which IFFCO has been formed and registered as a multi-unit co-operative society are as under :-'The object of IFFCO shall be to promote the economic interest of its members by undertakin...
M.R. Utensils Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC451; [2003]113CompCas667(Guj)
D.S. Sinha, C.J.1. Heard Mr. Mukul Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, at length and in detail.2. By means of the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray that the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Second) Ordinance, 2002, herein called the 'Ordinance', be declared ultra vires and unconstitutional.3. The sole submission of Mr. Mukul Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the Ordinance violates the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as it does not provide any remedy to the aggrieved borrower against the action taken by the secured creditor under Section 13 of the Ordinance. According to learned counsel, the impugned Ordinance is liable to be struck down as arbitrary and unconstitutional.4. Section 13 of the Ordinance provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 69 or Section 69A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of...
Sunilbhai Pranbhai Khara Vs. Rukshmaniben Girdharlal Mehta and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: (2003)2GLR1428
K.A. Puj, J.1. The present Civil Revision Application is filed against the order dated 25-2-2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Rajkot, in application below Exh. 98 in Special Civil Suit No. 202 of 1998, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application Exh. 98 filed by the present petitioner, original-defendant in the suit praying for a relief to frame the preliminary issue in regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the Civil Suit filed by the present respondents who are original-plaintiffs in the suit.2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present petition, are that the respondents-plaintiffs have filed Special Civil Suit No. 202 of 1998 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Rajkot, for a declaration that out of plaintiffs' Plot No. 34 admeasuring 361-3-0 sq. yards of land, the encroached land of the plaintiffs be ordered to be given vacant and peaceful possession and decree may be passed accordingly and it may further be declared that the petitione...
Kanaiya Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assessment and Recovery Officer and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: (2003)4GLR2772
R.K. Abichandani J.1. In this group of petitions raising identical dispute, the petitioners have challenged the special notices dated 13th February, 1996 issued to them by the respondent-Municipal Corporation under Rules 15(2) and 20(2) of Chapter VIII of the Schedule to the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 informing the petitioners that entries were made in the assessment book under Rules 9(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the said Rules and that if they have any objection against the same, they may be filed within the time mentioned in the notice. There is also a prayer in all these petitions seeking a declaration that the respondents had charged Rs. 25/- from the petitioners on the complaint form illegally, and that it should be refunded. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these matters stated before us that the petitioners were not pressing for this relief in these matters.2. According to the petitioners, their plots of Pandesara Industrial Estate wer...
Govt. of Gujarat Vs. R.L. Kalathia and Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-07-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Guj185; (2003)4GLR433
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. M.K. Patel for the appellant State of Gujarat; Mr. G.T. Dayani for Ms. Maya Bhavnani for the respondent original plaintiff. In this first appeal, the appellant original defendant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar in Special Civil Suit No. 30 of 1977 dated 14th December, 1982 wherein the trial Court has directed that the plaintiff shall recover from the defendant a sum of Rs. 2,27,758.00 with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till realization in full. Under the said decree, the appellant original defendant was directed to bear its own costs.2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are to the effect that the present respondent original plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Jamnagar for the work of construction of Earthen, Dam, Wasterwair and outlet of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »