Gujarat Court April 2002 Judgments
Shakuntala P. Devlekar Vs. Surat Municipal Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: (2003)4GLR154
R.K. Abichandani, Adv.1. These Letters Patent Appeals have been directed against the common judgment and Order dated 1st August 1989 passed by the learned Single Judge in a group of petitions in which the petitioners had challenged the Orders of their dismissal from service passed by the respondent Surat Municipal Corporation and the decision of the Standing Committee confirming the orders. Special Civil Application No. 7110 of 1997 was filed by the Surat Municipal Employees (Staff) Union and the other petitions were filed by individual employees amongst the members of the said Union.2. Due to the outbreak of pneumonic plague in the city of Surat, the Municipal Commissioner, after getting appropriate sanction from the State Government to take special measures, gave a call through public notices to the employees of the Municipal Corporation to report for work in view of the emergency situation created by the dangerous disease and issued a warning that defaulters will be dismissed. Some ...
Tag this Judgment!Gsrtc Thro. Legal Officer, K.D. Desai Vs. Gokalbhai M. Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3542
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard Mr.Mittual Shelat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner Corporation and Mr.J.S.Brambhatt, learned advocate for respondent workman. This Court has issued notice returnable on 30th April, 2002 by order dated 18th April, 2002.2. Rule. Mr.J.S.Brambhatt, learned advocate for respondent workman waives formal service of Rule on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, this matter is heard finally today. 3. In the present petition, the petitioner Corporation has challenged the award passed by the labour court, Vadodara in Reference No.283 / 1998 dated 17th April, 2001, wherein the Labour Court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 75% backwages of the interim period and also awarded punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect.4. Learned advocate Mr.Shelat appearing on behalf of the petitioner Corporation has submitted that the respondent workman was working as Driver ...
Tag this Judgment!Shantiniketan Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. District Registrar, Co-o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-29-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Guj428; (2002)2GLR1768
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr. I. M. Pandya, learned A.G.P., waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. Girish Patel, Sr. Counsel for Mr. Shalin Mehta waives service of rule for respondent Nos. 2 & 3. With the consent of parties matter is being disposed of finally.2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Housing Cooperative Society duly registered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). One Gopalbhai Narottamdas Mehta was the member of the petitioner-Society and he was allotted shares by thepetitioner-Society and in capacity as a shareholder of the petitioner-society said Gopalbhai Mehta was also allotted Plot No. 4 in the petitioner-society and he had constructed residential house over the said plot on 8-1-1981. Gopalbhai during his life time at the age of about 80 years executed a registered Will for creating a trust after his death for the benefit of members of his family. On 31-5-1990 Gopalbhai di...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshchandra M. Luthra Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-29-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR460(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. Admit. The following question of law is formulated.2. Has the Tribunal committed an error in exercise of its jurisdiction in setting aside the appellate order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) without taking into consideration the reasons for which that order was made 3. At the request of learned counsel appearing for both the sides, since the matter involves a short point, it has been taken up for final disposal. The matter pertains to the assessment year 1993-94. The assessee filed returns of income on January 31, 1994, declaring the total income of Rs. 1,29,000. In response to the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act, the assessee appeared through his authorised representative and during the proceedings, it was found that the assessee had maintained two sets of accounts, one in respect of the processing division and the other in construction division. The business of the processing division was in the name and style of Girish Silk Mill. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Ongc Labour Union and ors. Vs. Group General Manager (Project), O.N.G. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-29-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR967]; (2002)IIILLJ659Guj
R.M. Doshit, J.1. Heard the learned advocates. This petition has come up before me for hearing on interim relief on a motion made by the respondent-Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. in Civil Application No.2130 of 2002. Learned advocate Mr. N.R. Shahani appearing for the petitioners had raised a preliminary objection that this Bench has no jurisdiction to hear this matter. Thereupon, on April 9, 2002, an order was made on Civil Application No. 2130 of 2002, as under:'Learned advocate Mr. N.R. Shahani appearing for the Opponents raises an objection that this is not the matter which should have been posted before this Court, in view of the present roster. The registry to decide the matter and post the petition before the concerned Bench.'2. Pursuant to the said order, the registry has examined the matter and placed it before me today. Mr. Shahani has raised the same objection once again. According to Mr. Shahani, as per the present roster, the matter pertaining to the ONGC Ltd. should...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chandra M. Luthra Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-29-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Guj)39
Judgment R.K. Abichandani, J.Admit. The following question of law is formulated.Has the Tribunal committed an error in exercise of its jurisdiction in setting aside the appellate order of Commissioner (Appeals) without taking into consideration the reasons for which that order was made ?2. At the request of the learned counsel appearing for both the sides, since the matter involves a short point, it has been taken up for final disposal. The matter pertains to the assessment year 1993-94. The assessee filed returns of income on 31-1-1994, declaring the total income of Rs. 1,29,000. In response to the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act, the assessee appeared through its authorised representative and during the proceedings, it was found that the assessee had maintained two sets of accounts, one is in respect of processing division and the other construction division. The business of processing division was in the name and style of Girish Silk Mill. The construction division bus...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Barot Pravinbhai Hamirbhai and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-26-2002
Reported in: II(2003)DMC264
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. 1. The present appeal is filed under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 20.11.1993 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalawad in Criminal Case No. 625 of 1992. The accused were husband-Pravinbhai Hamirbhai of the complainant, accused No. 2 - Danabhai Hamirbhai was `Jeth' (elder brother of the husband) & accused No. 3 - Amrutben wife of Danabhai Hamir is `Jethani' (wife of elder brother of the husband). The accused were charged for the offences under Section 498-B, 333, 504, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and also Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The prosecution examined Sudhaben, wife of Anilkumar as PW1. She deposed that she knew the accused being the elder brother of my husband. She has also stated that they all were residing in the said locality at Kalavad. She has also deposed that Ushaben had gone to Porbander for 'celebrating Agiyaras' (a religious ce...
Tag this Judgment!Silk Museum Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR22(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', has referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'), the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, the Tribunal has erred in law in not following settled legal position and established law on the said subject of rules, practice and procedure of evidence, natural justice and fair play while confirming the addition of Rs. 1,40,000 relying upon 'inadmissible evidence' and ignoring 'undisputed evidence' adduced by the assessee ?'2. The matter pertains to the assessment year 1981-82. The assessee was a partnership firm dealing in sarees at Rajkot and doing its business since November 1, 1979. The assessee filed a return of its income on July 17, 1981. During the assessment proceedings the Department came in possession of some information to the effect that for acquiring the business premises on rent, the assessee-firm had paid certain amount ...
Tag this Judgment!Sagar Raiyaka, Chairman, G.i.D.C. and ors. Vs. B.S. Saraswati, Senior ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3465; (2002)3GLR589
D.P. Buck, J. 1. This is an application by the applicants above-named under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code1), for quashing and setting aside a private Criminal Complaint No. 1111 of 1995 filed and pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadodara for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 418 and 422 read with Section 114 of I.P.C. The contesting respondent has filed the aforesaid complaint stating that the contesting respondent is the Regional Manager of Vadodara Branch Office of the Bombay Intelligence Security India Pvt. Ltd. which has been registered as a company under the Companies Act, 1956. That the petitioners herein are the officers of the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation. The respondent also alleged that the petitioners herein had contacted the respondent stating that the petitioners required security services for Panoli Estate of the G.I.D.C., and therefore, a contract was entered into between the...
Tag this Judgment!Kanubhai Khodabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3660
Ravi R.Tripathi, J. 1. This appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order dated 26th May, 1998 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad, in Special NDPS Case No. 125 of 1992, by which the appellant is convicted under Section 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (`NDPS Act' for short) and punished with R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1 lac (Rupees One lac Only), in default to undergo S.I. for 3 months.2. In the year 1991, Mr. K.S. Savani, Police Sub Inspector of Task Force, was discharging his duties at Kheda (North). On 05/11/1991, he was in patrolling. During patrolling, when he was near Piplag Chokdi on Dabhan Highway, on his reaching at Dumral Chokdi, he received an information that in the `Sim' of Village Dumral, Kanubhai Khodabhai Patel of Village Dumral, is in possession of contraband opium and he is selling the same. The PSI, therefore, called two panchas, who expressed ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »