Gujarat Court April 2002 Judgments
Nalinkumar A. Thakar and ors. Vs. Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corpora ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR509
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. What is obvious is always known and what is known is not always present. . John Preface Dictionary. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. D.C. Raval for Mr. M.R. Anand Sr. Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. K.M. Patel, learned Advocate on behalf the respondent. 2. In the present case, the petitioners have challenged the order of termination passed by the respondent with a prayer to reinstate them with all consequential benefits along with back wages for the interim period. This Court has issued the rule on 6-12-1991 and the following order has been passed : 'Rule. Interim relief restraining the respondents from confirming the persons mentioned in Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the petition and directing the respondent to give preference to petitioners as and when temporary and ad hoc appointments are to be made to the post in question. It is also directed that the petitioners will be considered for the post in question for regular appointments if and when regular...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. H.S. Jani and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)4GLR3617
D.H. Waghela, J.1. The petitioner challenges the common judgment and order dated 14-9-2001 of the Labour Court, Surat in Recovery Application Nos. 585 to 860 of 2000, whereby the applications were allowed and the petitioner was ordered to pay to the respondents wages in respect of three days from 8-11-1999 to 10-11-1999. The workmen, respondents herein, had approached the Labour Court with the case of illegal deduction from their wages in respect of the aforesaid three public holidays and based their claim on a binding settlement dated 23-10-1993 in terms of which the workmen were eligible for twelve public holidays in a year. The parties had agreed to consolidate all the recovery applications and after an order to consolidate all the cases, evidence appears to have been recorded in only one matter.2. Besides, the documentary evidence of settlement on which the claim was based, oral evidence of one witness on both sides appears to have been recorded. According to me witness of the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Hazarat Pir Shah-e-alam Roza Estate Trust
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Guj)66
R.K. Abichandani, J.This reference arises from the order of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad 'A', passed in a group of 20 appeals related to the assessment years 1964-65 to 1969-70, 1972-73 and 1973-74, in which the controversy before us revolved around the issue as to whether the income from the lands in question was the income of the Hazarat Pir Shah-E-Alam Roza Estate Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rosa Trust), assessable in the hands of the said trust and exempt under section 11 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) or whether it was assessable, in the hands of the Sajjadanashin of the trust Saiyed Musamiya as income from his private property. 2. The Tribunal has concluded that the lands in question were wakf properties belonging to the Roza Trust, and that the exemption under section 11 of the Act was available to the assessee-Roza Trust, provided that conditions mentioned therein are fulfilled. It was held that the actual expenditure on the Sajjadanashi...
Tag this Judgment!K. Chandrasheekhar Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC406; (2002)2GLR1783
B.J. Shethna, J. 1. Misc. Criminal Application No. 1873 of 2002 is filed by petitioner-accused Sushilaben Prabhudas Tanna, aged 57 years, who is accused for the serious offences under Sections 304B, 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Prevention of Dowry Act registered as CR No. 1430 of 2001 with Jamnagar City, B-Division Police Station. Her son Kamlesh, who is husband of deceased-Sandhya, mother of two minor children Yash and Riddhi, aged 1 and 3 respectively, for the aforesaid offences.2. In the instant case, accused Sushilaben filed anticipatory bail application being Misc. Criminal Application No. 468 of 2001, which was rejected on 19-9-2001 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shri V. B. Mayani, by a reasoned order running into 9 typed pages by holding that there is a strong prima facie case against the accused-Sushilaben and though she is a lady she cannot be released on bail and even though she had two grandchildren aged 1 and 3 respectively and the...
Tag this Judgment!Kheralu Taluka Matsya Udyog Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs. State of Guj ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Guj97
Jayant Patel, J. 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.2. Heard Mr. Rathod for the petitioner and Mr. Kotak, Ld. AGP for the respondent. Rule Mr. Kotak, Ld. AGP waives the service.3. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner against the notice dated 14th December, 2000 issued by the Asstt. Director, prohibiting the fishing Activity in Mukteshwar Reservoir to the petitioner's society and the Notice dated 8th January, 2000 issued by the Deputy Director for terminating the contract.4. Mr. Rathod for the petitioner submitted that as per the policy of the Government, contract which has expired on June, 2000. was continued upto June, 2001 and the contract the Asstt. Director passed an order on 14th December, 2000, whereby, the society was prohibited from undertaking the fishing activities, which itself shows that the contract is yet not terminated and therefore, prior thereto, the society cannot be prohibited from continuing with the fishing a...
Tag this Judgment!Harun @ Rashid Khamisha Thaim Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(87)ECC65
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. 1. This Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the Judgment and order dated 30.9.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Special Sessions Case No. 4 of 1997, by which the appellant, accused No. 1 is convicted under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act' for brevity) and punished with rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh in default simple imprisonment for one year.2. On 20.1.1997 when a raid was conducted at the place of one 'Adbulla Dadhi' by Shri Bharatsinh M. Jadeja, P.I. (LCB), Jamnagar with PSI Shri P.K. Jadeja, City P.I. Shri Merujay and other staff members, one Abdul Sattar Abdul Karim, who was accused No. 2 in Sessions Case with one Firozkhan Pathan was found with 2.800 kg. of charas. During interrogation of Abdul Sattar, accused No. 2, he revealed that he had sold other quantity of charas to Harun ...
Tag this Judgment!Girishbhai Valjibhai Chudgar Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3676
ORDERpermission or intimation, he shall be treated to have voluntarily abandoned the Corporation's service.16. In our opinion, the facts of the case are squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industry Ltd. : (1993)IILLJ696SC . In the view of me said decision Clause 8 of me Rules is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and the petitioner should have been given opportunity of hearing in an inquiry after charge-sheeting him. Since that was not done the impugned Order dated 20-5-1997 Annexure-1 to the petition is clearly illegal and is hereby quashed.11. This Court has considered above observations made by the Apex Court in above-referred cases and considered the observations made by the Labour Court and the undisputed facts before the Labour Court that services of the petitioner was terminated because he remained absent for the period from June, 1994 to November, 1994. To remain absent without prior permission of the concerned authorit...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Arvind Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: [2002]111CompCas118(Guj)
N.G. Nandi, J.1. This petition under Section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') has been filed by Arvind Mills Ltd. ('the company'), seeking sanction to the scheme of restructuring of its debts, floated by the creditors.The company was incorporated on 1-6-1931 as a Public Limited Company to carry on business of spinning, weaving, manufacturing, dealing in cotton or other fabrics, substances and the preparation, dyeing or colouring of any of the said substances and the sale of yarn cloth or other manufactured fabrics and products and to carry on the business namely cotton spinners etc.; that the company had the authorised issued and subscribed share capital running into crores of rupees and issued equity shares of Rs. 1,00,54,99,450 with redeemable cumulative and non-convertible preference shares etc.; that the company and its associated textile companies employed over 10,000 persons in and around the city of Ahmedabad making them a largest private sector employer in the Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Rajyaguru K.H. Vs. Secretary, Gujarat Electricity Board
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ531Guj
ORDERH.K. Rathod, J. 1. Heard Mr. D.S. Vasavada, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. R.C.Jani, learned advocate on behalf of the respondent Board. According to the petitioner, he was working as Junior Engineer from October 24, 1979 and no adverse remarks in the Confidential Report of the petitioner No.1. It is also case of the petitioner that as such,no disciplinary action has been taken againstthe petitioner No. 1, therefore, it is presumedthat service record of the petitioner No. 1 isclean and satisfactory. There is neither anyadverse remarks in Confidential Report nor anydisciplinary action has been taken against thepetitioner No. 1. However, the real grievanceof the petitioner is that inspite of the fact thatthe petitioner is entitled to promotion to the next post of Deputy Engineer because his record isclear and no adverse remarks against him byrespondent No. 1. But the respondent No. 1issued promotion order on April 26, 1988 andJune 6, 1988 in favour of...
Tag this Judgment!Vallabhbhai Naranbhai Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC91; (2002)2GLR1731
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Rule. Learned A.P.P. Mr. K.C. Shah waives service of rule for respondent No. 1-State of Gujarat. Shri P.J. Yagnik waives service of rule for respondent-accused Nos. 2 and 3.2. The petitioner-original complainant-Shri Vallabh Naranbhai Parmar is a practising Advocate before the trial Court and brother of deceased-Shantaben has filed this revision application before this Court against the impugned judgment and order dated 3-1-2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar releasing respondents-accused on bail in Misc. Criminal Application No. 531 of 2001 filed before him in connection with the offences registered against them under Sections 306, 498A, 114 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Prohibition of Dowry Act in connection with the F.I.R. No. 86 of 2001 registered at Muli Police Station.3. The parties are belonging to a lowly strata of 'Chamar'. The marriage of Shantaben and respondent-accused No. 3-Anilkumar Balabhai was solemnised on 6-5-1999. Deceased-...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »