Gujarat Court March 2002 Judgments
Gramercy Emerging Market Fund Vs. Essar Steel Limited
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: [2002]111CompCas1(Guj)
ORDERS50. Since it is only now that it is being held that though the petitioners are creditors and, therefore, the petitions would be maintainable, but the trustee is a necessary party and that in the absence of the trustee the petitions could be dismissed, the petitioners are required to be given an opportunity to rectify this defect and, therefore, some time is required to be given to join the trustee as a party. After the trustee is joined as a party respondent in these petitions, the court will on the next date of hearing consider the question of applicability of condition No. 13 (enforceability) in light of the stand which may be taken up by the trustee and/or depending on the petitioners' holding in the value of the notes outstanding as indicated above.51. While overruling the four preliminary contentions raised by the respondent-company/ Essar Steel Limited, the court holds that the trustee for the FRNs (due 2005) Series A and Series B is a necessary party to the present proceed...
Tag this Judgment!Devayatbhai Bhimbhai Khachar and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3010
ORDERa) All these Criminal Appeal Nos.155/1999, 162/1999, 256/1999 and 286/1999 are partly allowed. The conviction of all the appellants recorded under Section 392 and 397 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code as well as punishment imposed for commission of the said offence is hereby set aside.b) In Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 1999, the conviction of appellant no.4, Jagabhai Ranabhai Khachar i.e. accused no.6 in Sessions Case No. 139 of 1998, recorded under Section 347 and 365 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code as well as punishment imposed for the commission of the said offence is hereby set aside. He is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required for any other offence. Fine, if paid, is to be refunded.c) In Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 1999, the conviction of appellant nos.1 and 2, Devayatbhai Bhimbhai Khachar and Aalaku @ Aalu Devayatbhai Khachar, accused nos. 1 and 2 respectively, recorded under Section 347 and 365 read with Section 120(B) of the...
Tag this Judgment!Faruq Adambhai Dal and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)2GLR1842
B.J. Shethna, J. 1. The petitioners-accused have challenged in this revision petition the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi on 11-1-2002 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 139 of 2001 filed by the respondent-State of Gujarat for cancelling the bail granted in their favour whereby the learned Judge cancelled that bail granted earlier. 2. On 22-7-2001 one Sanjay @ Laloo Natubhai, door-keeper of Vijay Cinema, Morbi lodged F.I.R. No. 1174 of 2001 before Morbi City Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 436, 153A I.P.C. against 2-3 persons. It was alleged in the complaint that after the movie 'Gadar' was over, some persons caused damage to the screen of the theatre by throwing plastic kerosene bags and tried to set the screen ablaze. The fire was extinguished by the staff of the theatre. In all, seven persons including the present two petitioners-accused were arrested for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. Narayanbhai Kalubhai Bhamre
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR869
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. P. Hasurkar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Board and Mr. A. K. Clerk, learned Advocate for respondent-workman. 2. The petitioner-Board has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Surat in Reference No. 795 of 1995 dated 3rd March, 2001, wherein the labour Court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service without back wages of the interim period. On date 7th November, 2001, this Court has issued notices to the respondent and granted ad-interim relief in terms of Para 6(B) subject to provisions of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter, this matter is taken up for final hearing on admission stage. Hence, Rule. Learned Advocate Mr. A. K. Clerk waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-workman. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Hasurkar on behalf of the petitioner-Board has submitted that the labour Court has committed error in coming to the conclusion that inquiry was not initiated before terminating...
Tag this Judgment!Hanifbhai Bapubhai Dasadia Vs. Divisional Controller
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR624]
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. M.J. Shelat for Mr. A.M. Dagali, learned advocate for respondent - Corporation.Rule. Mr. M.J. Shelat, learned advocate for Mr. A.M. Dagali waives formal service of Rule on behalf of the respondent Corporation.2. The grievance of the present petitioner is that he has been reinstated in pursuance of the settlement arrived at between the parties in Reference No.363 / 1990 before the labour court, Bhavnagar on 7th May, 2000. Accordingly, the petitioner has been reinstated in service vide order dated 26th July, 2000 on same post on which he was working but pay scale granted to the petitioner workman as if to the fresh employee against the terms of the settlement and it was not an intention of the settlement. The settlement is arrived at to reinstate the petitioner on his original post with continuity of service without increments. The petitioner has not been granted continuity of service ...
Tag this Judgment!Sursangji Ambaram and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)2GLR1462
M.S. Shah, J.1. Both these petitions are directed against the judgment and order dated 7-8-2001 passed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in Revision Application No. TEN. B.A. 27 of 2001 under the provisions of Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('the Act' for brevity).2. By the impugned judgment the Tribunal has set aside the judgment and order dated 25-10-2000 passed by Mr. S. G. Bharwad, Deputy Collector (Land Reforms & Appeals), Ahmedabad in an appeal which was preferred after delay of 40 years against the order of the Mamlatdar passed in the year 1960.Earlier, against the same order, occupants of the land (petitioners in Special Civil Application. No. 3340 of 2002) had filed revision application after 34 years under Section 76A of the Act, That revision application was allowed by the Deputy Collector on 4-4-1995. When a revision application was filed by the State Government against the said order dated 4-...
Tag this Judgment!Mukeshbhai Bhavanji Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)4GLR2981
C.K. Buch, J.1. This revision application is moved by the original complainant under sec. 397 read with sec. 401 of CrPC in reference to the CR NO. I-153/2002 registered at Bhuj City Police Station on 8.7.2001 at about 1.00AM.2. On completion of investigation of the crime, the police has charge-sheeted respondent no. 2-Dhaval Thakkar for the offence punishable under sec. 302 of IPC and he has been committed to the Court of Sessions by the concerned Magistrate. The respondent no. 2-accused is facing trial at present for the said offence in the Sessions Case No. 30/2001. Ld. APP, during the course of submissions has stated that the trial is pending with the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge dealing with the under-trial prisoners which is one of the Court established for the purpose under the programme of 'Fast Track Court'. Of course, this Court is aware of the fact that looking to the nature of the grievance expressed by the present petitioner, the pendency of the sessions case before the F...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. D.N. Modan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3758
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Upon the joint request and considering importance and the emergency in the matter, this matter is taken up for hearing today itself.2. The petitioners have questioned legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 2-11-01 recorded by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in O.A. No. 416 of 1996, whereby the application of the respondent for quashing and setting aside the departmental proceeding on the same set of facts, evidence and evidence upon which the respondent came to be concluded, came to be allowed.3. The few relevant skeleton projection of facts can be highlighted in the departmental inquiry, against the respondent on the ground of misconduct objection came to be raised about maintainability on the ground that the respondent came to be acquitted in criminal trial in Criminal Case No. 1 of 1992 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara. The acquittal was clean and clear on the merits. It was not obviously based on benefit of d...
Tag this Judgment!Dangs Zilla Panchayat Karmachari Mandal Class Iii Vs. State of Gujarat ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ1146Guj
ORDERD.H. Waghela, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is filed by a trade union of class III employees mainly with a prayer to set aside the resolution dated August 6, 1985 of the Panchayat and Rural Housing Department of the Government of Gujarat, whereby, the amount paid by way of additional remuneration for not going on strike was ordered to be recovered.2. In June 1985, an agitation for abolition, of the roster system had started and many unions of Government situation, to prevent the administration from being paralysed, it was declared by the Resolution dated June 6, 1985 of the General Administration Department that the employees who would continue to discharge their duties disregarding the calls for strike by the union would be entitled to double salary. That Resolution was modified by another Resolution dated June 28, 1985 directing that, double payment during the strike-period would be payable to all categories of Government staff including panch...
Tag this Judgment!Ramnath Marethia, Regional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)2GLR1597
D.P. Buch, J.1. The three petitioners herein have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing a private complaint filed by the respondent herein, against them before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 2 at Ahmedabad City which was registered against the petitioners as Criminal Case No. 1173 of 2001 for an offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of I.P.C. The facts of the case of respondent No. 1 as complainant before the said Court may be briefly stated as follows :The said complainant, respondent No. 1 herein, has alleged that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, the original accused in the said criminal case, are the responsible officers of United India Insurance Company Ltd., whereas, petitioner No. 3 is a doctor who conducted inquiry into the claims of the complaint. It is also alleged that one Shri Pritamlal Shah used to meet the original complainant very often in the Court as Agent of the said Insurance Company. That t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »