Gujarat Court September 2002 Judgments
Deepakkumar Keshavlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)4GLR416
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioners herein were the members of the respondent No.4 bank and by resolution dated 11.11.2001, which is at Annexure-L to the petition, both of them were removed as the members of the respondent No.4 bank. The resolution dated 11.11.2001 passed by the bank was approved by the District Registrar and the appeal against the aforesaid order was also dismissed by the Additional Registrar (Appeals) on 2.2.2002. The petitioners, thereafter, carried the matter further before the revisional authority. The revision was also dismissed by the State Government on 6.4.2002. Being aggrieved by the said order of the revisional authority, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of this petition.2. On behalf of the present petitioners, a letter was addressed to the District Registrar, Mahesana on 24.5.2001 pointing out that, in the respondent NO.4 bank, elections are not held and that the Annual General Meeting was not held within time, and, that the direction may b...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Ratanlal Motilal Vs. Uma Transport Company
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)2GLR989
B.J. Shethna, J. 1. The petitioner, original defendant - tenant, which is a partnership firm has challenged in this revision application, which is filed under Sec, 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'), the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, decreeing the suit of the respondent - original plaintiff on the ground of non-user of the suit premises under Section 13(1)(k) of the Act. 2. Shri Sudhir Nanavati, learned senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner-tenant, vehemently submitted that both the Courts below have committed a grave error in passing the decree of eviction against the petitioner-tenant on the ground of non-user of the suit premises. He submitted that though there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below on the point of non-user of the suit premises continuously for a period of six months immediately prior to the date of filing of the suit, this Court should interfere with such c...
Tag this Judgment!Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Gujarat Mineral Development C ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)2GLR956
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged the action of the respondent No. 1 - Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. in issuing Letter of Intent dated 11th July, 2002 in favour the respondent No. 2 -M/s T.R.F. Limited, for award of the contract for Designing, Engineering, Manufacture, Supply, Transportation, Erection, Testing and Commissioning of 600 T.P.H. Lignite Handling System and 300 T.P.H. Lime Handling System on turnkey basis for its Akrimota Thermal Power Project, and have sought a direction on the respondent No. 1 to disqualify the tender of the respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company engaged in the field of design, engineering, manufacture, supply, installation of bulk material handling plants and equipments for power and other industries. The respondent No. 1 invited tenders for their Akrimota Thermal Power Project on 1st March, 2001. The tender documents contained details about the scope of work and other instructions and c...
Tag this Judgment!Sr. Regional Manager, F.C.i. and anr. Vs. Sunil Agencies
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Guj233; (2003)2GLR1020
ORDERAt this stage, learned Counsel for the respondent, Mr. Sukhwani has requested to stay the order for one month to approach the higher forum. It is to be noted that tender in question is regarding handling of foodgrains and looking to the period, if tender will not be permitted to be finalised, interest of the people at large will be severely affected. Hence, request for stay is rejected. Direct service is permitted. ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Reliance Petroleum Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: [2003]46SCL38(Guj)
ORDERD.M. Mehta, J. 1. This is a petition, filed by Reliance Petroleum Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'RPL' or the 'transferor Company' of the 'petitioner-company'). The object of this petitioner is to obtain sanction of this Court to the arrangement embodied in the Scheme of Amalgamation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Scheme') of RPL with Reliance Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'RIL' or the 'transferee company').2. RPL was originally incorporated on 3-9-1991 as 'Reliance Refineries Private Limited' with its Registered Office in the State of Maharashtra. On 27-1-1993, the said Company shifted its Registered Office to the State of Gujarat, and on 7-4-1993, the name of the said company was changed to 'Reliance Refineries Limited', and thereafter to 'Reliance Petroleum Limited on 16-4-1993.3. The Registered Office of Reliance Petroleum Limited the transferor Company is at Village Motikhavdi P.O. Digvijay Gram, Distt. Jamnagar (Gujarat) 361140.4. As per certified cop...
Tag this Judgment!Dilipbhai Motibhai Patel Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)4GLR511
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. All these First Appeals are filed being aggrieved of the common judgment and award dated 7th February, 1989 passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 478 of 1986 to 489 of 1986 by the learned Assistant Judge, Bharuch, whereby compensation at the rate of Rs. 660=00 per Are was awarded in place of Rs. 120=00 per Are awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, along with 12% interest on the market value of the land for the period from the date of publication of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act till the date of the award of the Collector or till the date of taking over possession, whichever is earlier. The learned Judge was pleased to hold that the claimant is entitled to 30% solatium on the market value and is also entitled to recover interest 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking over possession and for the subsequent year, till the date of payment with running interest @ 15% per annum.2. The facts of the case in nuts...
Tag this Judgment!Mulchandbhai Lavjibhai Patel and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR443
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. This is a petition filed by the petitioners herein under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking and seeking protection of their fundamental rights guaranteed by Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioners are un-armed and armed police constables serving in various police stations of Sabarkantha District. Initially, each of the petitioners was appointed as police constable in various other districts, but on their request, each of them was transferred to the Sabarkantha District. In short, each of the petitioners is serving in the Sabarkantha District on acceptance of their request-transfer.1.1 The controversy and grievance raised in the present petition arises on account of the fact that the petitioners have been denied the benefit of higher grade/scale on completion of nine years of service. The petitioners assert that the benefit of higher grade/scale has been denied to them on the basis of a Government Resolution dated 16th August, 1994, which is at...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mariambai A. Adamji (Sinc ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ1353; (2003)1GLR574
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Hardik Raval for the appellant, and learned Advocate Mr. M.T.M. Hakim with learned Advocate Mr. A. R. Shaikh on behalf of the original claimants.2. Today, i.e. on 12th September, 2002, on behalf of the original claimants, a Civil Application No. 6257 of 2002 has been filed by Zubeda Abdulhabib and Mumtaz Abdulhabib being the daughters, legal heirs and representatives of Mariambai Abdulhabib Adamji, original claimant stating that during the pendency of the present appeal, original claimant Mariambai Abdulhabib Adamji has expired on 3rd December, 1998. They have, therefore, prayed that, they are required to be joined as legal heirs and representatives of deceased Mariambai Abdulhabib Adamji. Along with the application, the death certificate dated 2nd May, 2000 of Mariambai Abdulhabib has been produced on record. Learned Advocate Mr. Hardik Raval has no objection if these applicants, being daughters of the deceased, are brought on record as leg...
Tag this Judgment!Ladhabhat Monabhat Mangkiya Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Guj116
ORDERJayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Ms. Bhaya appearing on behalf of respondents waives service of rule. With the consent of parties matters are taken up for final hearing today.2. Present petitions are preferred against the issuance of bill by the Meter Reader. It is the case of the petitioners that the Meter Reader has no authority to issue such bill. A perusal of the bill which is issued shows that there is a noting that the meter is kept above. The contention of the petitioner is that the meter was found to be working in proper condition and there was absolutely no basis for the purpose of issuing additional bill. The petitioner contends that, as a matter of fact, merely because the meter reader found that the meter has stopped is no ground for arriving at conclusion on his own. that too. without giving opportunity, whatsoever, to the petitioner. It has been submitted that therefore the decision of issuing the bill by the meter reader and insistence for recovery of same by the Gujarat El...
Tag this Judgment!Rabari Karsanbhai Rajabhai Vs. D. Danial Gajraj @ Prithavi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC645
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. The present First Appeal is filed by the appellant -- original claimant being aggrieved of the judgement and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.162 of 1979 dated 26.9.1980.2. The facts of the case are that the wife of the claimant, Bai Jivi, aged about 29 years, died on 2.7.1979 at about 16.45 hours on account of injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident.3. The claimant had initially claimed an amount of Rs.30,000/-, as compensation. Subsequently he reduced his claim to Rs.25,000/-, by making necessary amendment in his claim petition. He reduced the claim amount because he was not able to pay the court fee. Be that as it may. The fact remains that the claimant lost his wife aged 29 years on 2.7.1979, in a motor vehicle accident occurred on Himatnagar-- Modasa Highway, when one Toyoto Crown motor car bearing registration No.Ba A 4769 (U...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »