Gujarat Court March 2002 Judgments
Vinodbhai Manilal Sathwara Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(85)ECC136; (2002)2GLR1762
K.R. Vyas, J.1. The appellant-Vinodbhai Manilal Sathwara has challenged the judgment and order dated 7-11-1998 passed in N.D.P.S. Case No. 6 of 1997 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha, Himatnagar. The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.D.P.S. Act') and sentenced to suffer R. I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default, to undergo further R. I. for one year.2. The complainant-Ranvirshingh Vadanshingh Puwar P.W. 8 Exh. 38, was at the relevant time serving as Police Inspector, Narcotic Cell, C.I.D. Crime, at Ahmedabad. On 30-9-1997, he received information from informant at about 12-10 p.m. that the appellant, the resident of Kumbharvas, Prantij, district Sabarkantha had kept illegal opium below his kitchen staircase near the wall. The complainant wrote down the said information and informed his superior office...
Tag this Judgment!Girishbhai Maganlal Kotecha, Vice-president and Councillor, Junagadh M ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Guj311; (2002)2GLR1720
Kundan Singh, J.1. The common order passed by the State Government dated' 24-1-2002 passed in Revision Application No. 17 of. 2001 has been challenged in these three petitions and hence they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Special Civil Application No. 1289 of 2002 has been filed by Girishbhai Maganlal Kotecha against Vice-President and Councillor of Junagadh Municipality and against statutory authorities stated above and Smt. Artiben Joshi, Smt. Shehnazben Ibrahimbhai Qureshi, Shri Anilbhai Pravinchandra Udani and Smt. Jayaben Nanabhai Rathod. Special Civil Application No. 1290 of 2002 has been filed by Jayaben Nanabhai Rathod against the authorities stated above and Girishbhai Maganbhai Kotecha, Smt. Artiben Joshi, Smt. Shehnajbhai Ibrahimbhai Qureshi and Shri Anilbhai Pravinchandra Udani. The third petition being Special Civil Application No. 1291 of 2002 has been filed by Smt. Artiben Joshi, President of Junagadh Municipality against Girishbhai Maganlal Kotecha, Sm...
Tag this Judgment!Virat Engineering Private Ltd. Vs. Harleystreet Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)1GLR45; [2003]47SCL107(Guj)
C.K. Buck, J. 1. The original petitioner-Virat Engineering Private Ltd. has taken out this Judges Summons with a prayer that the order dated 31-1-1995 passed by this Court in Company Petition No. 51 of 1990 dismissing the petition under Rule 31 of Company Court Rules be reviewed and the company petition be refixed for hearing on merits. It is also simultaneously prayed that any other and further relief as this Court deems fit, just and proper also may be granted. 2. This Judges Summons is taken by Mrs. Soparkar learned Counsel for the applicant and supported by the affidavit of her clerk Mr. Yogesh R. Patel. The copy of the Judges Summons was served to Mr. A. C. Gandhi learned Counsel for the opponent-Company. For the sake of convenience and to appreciate the rival contentions raised before this Court, the order sought to be reviewed by the applicant (ori. petitioner) is reproduced as under : 'On 10-1-1995 by a common order along with other matters, this matter was also notified on a s...
Tag this Judgment!Troikaa Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Registrar of Trade Marks
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(24)PTC497(Guj)
ORDERJayant Patel, J. 1. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner for appropriate direction to the respondents to follow the provisions of Rule 11(3) of Trade & Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959, which, inter alia, provides for acceptance of fees by Postal Order.2. Heard Dr. Acharya for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Shah for respondents. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that once under the Statutory Rule, mode of the payment is provided by way of Postal Order, it is not open to the respondent authority to decline the payment through Postal Order. However, on behalf of respondents, Mr. M.R. Shah, learned Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel has contended that since small amounts are involved in the postal orders and as the banks are not accepting the same, it becomes practically difficult for the office of the respondent No. 1 to make arrangement for encashment of the postal orders and, therefore, the respondent No.1 is insisting for the payment of fees by Cheque/Deman...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Agricultural University Vs. All Gujarat Kamdar Karmachari Unio ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR693
D.H. Waghela, J.1. This group of 65 Letters Patent Appeals is preferred from a common judgment of this Court, whereby, 65 petitions of the appellant challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad were dismissed. By the award of the Industrial Tribunal, the appellant University was directed to pay to the respective original complainants wages for the extra weekly holidays as also for the eleven days of unpaid Diwali holidays imposed upon them. It further directed not to give any extra leave of absence without pay in a week. These directions in favour of the respective complainants before the Industrial Tribunal were subject to the condition that only such of the complainants as were fulfilling the conditions of the settlement dated 22-8-1980 would be entitled to the benefits. The cause of the complaints or the genesis of the controversy lay in the adoption by the University of a new schedule of work in 1991 under which there was to be general holiday on the 2nd and the 4th ...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. Kamal Construction Com ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)2GLR1520
Y.B. Bhatt, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the Gujarat State Construction Corporation Ltd., challenging the judgment and decree passed by the 6th Jt. Civil Judge (S.D.), Bharuch in Special Civil Suit No. 45 of 1994, whereby the Corporation's suit, as the plaintiff, was dismissed.2. The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit against the sum of Rs. 74,68,554-60 ps., as damages sustained by the appellant-plaintiff on account of the breachof contract on the part of the defendant, and also on account of the fact thatthe abandonment of the contract on the part of the defendant required the plaintiff(1) 2000 (4) SCC 108 (2) 1976 (3) SCC 203to entrust the unfinished work to another contractor at higher rates and higher consequential expenditure.3. The trial Court examined the relevant pleadings of the parties, framed the appropriate issues and after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion by recording the appropriate findings to ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashokkumar J. Pandya Vs. Suyog Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR673
H.H. Mehta, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 104 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the original defendant No. 1 in Special Civil Suit No. 236 of 1993, which is still pending on the file of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, at Ahmedabad challenging an order dated 24-2-1994 passed below application Exh. 5 in the aforesaid suit.2. The original defendant No. 1 is the appellant, while plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively (For the sake of convenience parties will be referred to hereinafter as the plaintiff and respective defendants).3. The facts leading to this Appeal From Order in a nutshell are as follows : or about 29-7-1993, original plaintiff filed aforesaid Special Civil Suit No. 236 of 1993 against the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 mainly for following reliefs : [a] A decree of mandatory injunction directing defendant No. 2 to grant a necessary permission under ...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Housing Board Vs. Gujarat Housing Board Employment Union
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3150
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard Mrs. K.A. Mehta learned Advocate for the petitioner. In the present petition the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Ref. (I.T.) No. 174 of 1982 dated 27-4-1993 is challenged by the petitioner.2. This Court has issued Rule and granted interim relief in terms of Para 9(B) on 2-9-1994. The Rule has been served on the respondent but nobody has remained present on behalf of the respondent. No appearance has been filed on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, the matter has been taken up for final hearing today in the absence of the respondent.3. Mrs. K.A. Mehta learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass a mandatory Order against the petitioner to fill up 143 posts of Sr. Clerks as per seniority as mentioned in the Schedule at item No. 11. She has submitted that the respondent-Union has not pointed out any material before the Tribunal to the effect that right person has not been granted pro...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaben D/O Madaribhai Bhagabhai Dhodiya Vs. Bhanabhai Madaribhai Pate ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Guj376; (2002)2GLR1365
Y.B. Bhatt, J. 1. This is an appeal by the original plaintiff challenging the dismissal of her suit by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Surat by judgment and decree in Special Civil Suit No. 89 of 1997.2. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff is a female and she has filed suit in her capacity as daughter of one Madaribhai Bhagabhai Dhodiya, although it is admitted that she is married. She had sued her brother for partition of ancestral property by metes and bounds, where agricultural lands were the subject-matter of this partition suit.3. The trial Court after framing appropriate issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, considered the entire evidentiary material on record and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to 1/2 share of the suit property as claimed, that the plaintiff failed to prove that the properties which were the subject-matter of the suit were joint family properties, that the plaintiff is not entitled to the partition claimed, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Prempratapsingh Sisodiya and anr. Vs. A.C. Patel and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: (2002)2GLR1411
ORDERAfter above judgment came to be pronounced, learned Addl. Standing Counsel Mr. Anant S. Dave for Union of India has prayed that this judgment and order be placed under suspension for a period of 3 (three) weeks as respondent No. 1-complainant department may decide to approach the higher forum. The petitioners are on bait and so no formal order of suspension of judgment and order is required to be passed. Even otherwise, it would always be open for respondent No. 1 department to challenge the judgment and order, if department is aggrieved by the same. Hence, request made by Mr. Anant S. Dave for Union of India is not accepted. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »