Gujarat Court May 2002 Judgments
State of Gujarat and anr. Vs. Mahendrakumar Parshottambhai Desai and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Guj3; (2002)3GLR401
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The applicants-appellants-State of Gujarat and Collector Vadodara have filed above appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21-3-1994 passed by the Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara in Special Civil Suit No. 776 of 1992 whereby the learned Judge dismissed the Special Civil Suit No. 776 of 1992 filed by the appellants for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Survey No. 371 and 372B Tika No. 27/ 15, 27/16, 27/17 Survey No. 1/A/2 situated within the municipal limits ofVadodara Municipal Corporation admeasuring 128073 sq.mtr. of land i.e. 53 vighas and 17 vassas. The appeal was admitted way back on 13-5-1994.It seems that the appeal was earlier listed for final hearing on 22-6-2000 before other Division Bench wherein Civil Application No. 4849 of 2000 was moved on the previous day i.e., on 22-6-2000 and it was placed before the concerned Bench on 22-6-2000 under the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The said application was filed under ...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Mills Limited and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR624
A.L. Dave, J.1. Rule. Mr. A.D. Oza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service on behalf of the State in all the matters. Mr. S.V. Raju waives service on behalf of the respondent-original complainant in Special Criminal Application Nos. 433, 560 and 570 of 2001. Mr. Sandeep Singhi for M/s. Singhi & Co. waives service on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 9 in Special Criminal Application No. 433 of 2001, Mr. P.K. Jani waives service on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 6. In Special Criminal Application No. 560 of 2001. Mr. R. J. Oza waives service on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and Mr. Vyapak N. Desai waives service on behalf of respondent No. 7 in Special Criminal Application No. 579 of 2001.2. A private complaint came to be filed in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, at Ahmedabad by Commerzbank A.G., a banking company incorporated under laws of Germany, through Mr. A. Sekar on 6-6-2001 against I.C.I.C.I. Limited and Arvind Mills Limited along with their respective...
Tag this Judgment!Ambuja Synthetics Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: 2003(85)ECC266
B.C. Patel, Actg. C.J.1. This group of petitions raises a common question and therefore, all these matters are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The constitutional validity of Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1944'), as substituted by M.F. (D.R.) Notification No. 18/99-CE (NT.) dated 28.2.1999, prescribing imposition of penalty equal to an amount of duty outstanding from an independent processor of textile fabrics in case such person fails to pay the amount of duty or any part thereof by the specified date, is challenged, on the ground that the aforesaid Rule, is ultra vires the Constitution.3. Rule 96ZQ of Rules, 1944, reads as under:'96ZQ. Procedure to be followed by the independent processor of textile fabrics- (1) An independent processor of textile fabrics falling under heading Nos. 52.07. 52.08, 52.09, 54.06, 54,07, 55.11, 55.12, 55.13 and 55.14 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), sh...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Controller, G.S.R.T.C. Vs. V.K. Chaher
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)4GLR3302
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Thakkar for Mr. Lakhani for the Corporation. Learned Advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt for the respondent has remained present on behalf of the respondent-workman. Therefore, the matter has been taken up for hearing in presence of both the learned Advocates.2. The original petitioner-Corporation has challenged the award made by the Tribunal concerned in Approval Application No. 17 of 1994 in Reference (I.T.) No. 65 of 1991 dated 9th December, 1998 whereby the approval application moved by the Corporation has been rejected by the Tribunal. This petition was admitted by this Court and ad interim relief in terms of Para 9(C) of the petition was granted on 14th October, 1999 which has continued. The respondent has filed affidavit-in-reply dated 14th December, 1999 and 24th January, 2002.3. Learned Advocate Ms. Thakkar appearing for the Corporation has submitted that the respondent was working as Art-A Mechanic and his duty was to clean the diesel tank for...
Tag this Judgment!Harshvadan Vithaldas Panchal Vs. Ahmedabad Mercantile Co-operative Ban ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3539
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr.Ravindra R Shah appears and waives service of rule on behalf of respondent. With the consent of parties matter is finally heard today.2. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 3.7.01 passed by the tribunal whereby the exparte judgment and award passed by the Ld.Nominee is confirmed.3. The short facts of the case are that the suit being Lavad Suit No.1036/95 was preferred for recovering Rs.5,09,254.52ps by the respondent-Bank against the petitioner. It is the case of the bank that the summons were served. However, the petitioner has denied the said aspect. On 2.4.96 award came to be passed by the Ld.Nominee and the petitioner could not remain present for defending the suit.4. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Gujarat State Coop.Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal') being Appeal No.264/96 and there was delay in preferring the appeal and an application for condonation of delay was also submitted toget...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Meliyabhai A. Vasava
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR369
H. K. Rathod, J. 1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Vasavdatta Bhatt for the Corporation and Mr. Pathak for the workman.2. By filing Special Civil Application No. 10503 of 1996, the Corporation has challenged the award made by the labour Court, Surat in Reference No. 319 of 1993 dated 21st July, 1996 wherein the labour Court concerned has granted fresh employment to the respondent workman on the post of peon and has not granted backwages to the respondent for intervening period and has also denied continuity of service. Same award made by the labour Court concerned has also been challenged by the workman concerned by filing Special Civil Application No. 673 of 1997 insofar as it relates to denial of backwages for the intervening period and continuity of service.3. Special Civil Application No. 10503 of 1996 was admitted by this Court on 7th April, 1997. Special Civil Application No. 673 of 1997 was admitted by this Court on 7th April, 1997.4. Learned Advocate Ms. Bhatt for Corporation has s...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Finstock Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR717; [2003]47SCL530(Guj)
Jayant Patel, J. 1. Rule. Mr. S.N. Shelat, Sr. Counsel appears and waives service of rule on behalf of respondent. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties matter is finally heard. 2. The present petition arises against the order dated 12-11-1999 passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the S.E.B.I.') and its confirmation by the appellate authority as per order, dated 29-2-2000. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Public Limited Company and the respondent is S.E.B.I. constituted under the provisions of Securities & Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the year 1995, a public issue was floated by the petitioner-Company wherein the prospectus was filed on 22-3-1995 and the issue came to be opened on 20-4-1995 and closed on 24-4-1995 and the allotment of shares came to be made on 26-5-1995. On 25-7-1997 the S.E.B.I. issued show-cause notice in exercise of powers under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Shantilal K. Solanki Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR569
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The challenge in this petition is against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, dated 27-4-2000 in Original Application No. 616 of 1999 whereby the application claiming the right of appointment on compassionate ground of the petitioner after the death of his father came to be rejected.2. A relevant and material conspectus of facts leading to the rise of this petition may be highlighted at the outset :(i) The father of the petitioner who was serving in Railway expired on 9-1-1985, while in service. (ii) At the time of death of father of the petitioner, the petitioner was minor as his birth date has been 11-4-1976. (iii) The petitioner attained the age of majority upon completion of 18 years, and immediately thereafter, an application for appointment on compassionate ground was filed by him on 19-7-1995. (iv) The petitioner had also personally visited the office of the D.R.M. of Railway Authority and had submitted another application on 8-10-...
Tag this Judgment!Himanshu S. Nanavati Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Guj99
ORDERJayant Patel, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Chhaya appearing for the respondent waives the service of notice of rule.2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up today for final hearing.3. The petition arises against the order dtd. 13-12-2000 passed by the respondent whereby, the licence of the petitioner as engineer is cancelled.4. The short facts giving rise to present petition are that the petitioner was granted licence on 18-2-1991 by the Corporation to work as Civil Engineer. In July 1997. the petitioner was retained by New Shree Raj Owners Association for the purpose of construction of Shree Raj Complex. It is the case of the Corporation that there were breaches of the conditions of licence, whereas, as per the petitioner of his own had resigned from the job which was accepted by him. The show cause notice was issued on 24-11-2000 by the Corporation to the petitioner as to why the licence of the petitioner should not be cancelled on the ground that the conditions of the lice...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Punja Rabari Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)4GLR2838
Kshitij R. Vyas, J. 1. This appeal is filed under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is filed against the judgement and order dated 26.2.1999 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Modasa in Sessions Case No. 8 of 1994 by which the appellant is convicted under sec. 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act' for short) and is punished with rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.1 lakh, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. On 24.8.1994, when Police Sub Inspector, Bayad was returning from village Bormadh to Bayad after investigation of an offence registered at C.R. No. 80 of 1994 of Bayad Police Station, he received an information from an informant that a person who is tall and wearing Khaki Kameez is coming from Rajasthan in an ST Bus with 'Posh-na-Doda' (Poppy straw). The Police officer on receipt of this information, proceeded to the Bus Stand. He sent Head Constable, Ragh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »