Gujarat Court December 2003 Judgments
State of Gujarat Vs. Rajubhai Dhamirbhai Bariya and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-26-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ771; (2004)1GLR404
B. J. Shethna, J.1. Against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27-6-2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Vadodara, in Sessions Case No. 248 of 2002 acquitting the respondents-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 504, 342, 427, 436, 395, 307 and 302 of the I.P.C., the appellant-State of Gujarat has filed the above Appeal. Thereafter, the State of Gujarat had filed the above Misc. Criminal Application No. 9677 of 2003 in the said Appeal and prayed that the appellant-State be permitted to produce the affidavits of four witnesses, namely, (i) Zahirabibi, Exh. 46, (ii) Sairabanu Habibulla Shaikh, Exh. 39, (iii) Sahejadkhan Hasankhan, Exh. 124 and (iv) Mohmad Ashraf Shaikh, Exh. 123 on record and further evidence of the witnesses be permitted to be recorded and also be ordered retrial after quashing the entire proceedings. Thereafter, another Misc. Criminal Application No. 9825 of 2003 was filed in the said Appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Nila Bauart Engineering Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan Urban Infrastructureproject ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-23-2003
Reported in: II(2005)BC116
C.K. Buch, J.1. Both these petitions have been moved invoking jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate relief by the rival parties of Special Civil Suit No. 202 of 2003 (herein after referred to as the said Suit) pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (SD) at Vadodara in reference to one order passed by the learned Judge below exh.39 and an order passed below exh.1- the plaint in reference to one withdrawal purshis exh.20, filed on 5.5.2003.2. The petitioner of SCA No. 14998 of 2003 is the original plaintiff of the said suit filed seeking a declaration and permanent injunction against encashing bank guarantees, wherein the plaintiff had also prayed for temporary injunction. The petitioner of SCA No. 15050 of 2003 is the original defendant no.1 no.1 in the said suit. For the sake of convenience petitioner of SCA No.14998 of 2003 is referred as plaintiff and respondent no.1 i.e. petitioner of SCA No. 15050 of 2003, is referre...
Tag this Judgment!Agriculture Produce Market Committee Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)4GLR800; (2004)1GLR770; (2004)2GLR1024
M.S. Shah, J. 1. In this petition filed on September 12, 2003under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thepetitioner Agriculture Produce Market Committee hadprayed for appropriate writ or order to restrain therespondent authorities from appointing the Administratorunder Section 11(5) of the Agriculture Produce MarketsAct ('the Act' for short) and also to direct therespondents to extend the term of the petitioner APMCtill the elected body takes over the charge. 2. It appears that, immediately after the petitionwas filed, by order dated September 15, 2003 the StateGovernment appointed the Administrator. Hence, thepetitioner obtained leave to amend the petition forchallenging the said order dated September 15, 2003.When the petition reached admission hearing on September23, 2003, after hearing the learned counsel for theparties, this Court admitted the petition, and by way ofad-interim order, directed the Administrator to continueto hold the office as Administrator of the MarketComm...
Tag this Judgment!Star Pistons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-23-2003
Reported in: 2005(182)ELT152(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J.1. Rule. Service of rule is waived by learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Mr. D. N. Patel for the respondents. At the request of the learned advocates, the petition is finally heard today.2. The petitioner has been aggrieved by an Order dated 3-7-2003 passed by respondent No. 2.3. Learned advocate Mr. Paresh M. Dave appearing for the petitioner has mainly submitted that the impugned order is bad in law for the reason that respondent No. 2 is an appellate authority has not given any reason for setting aside the Order which was challenged before him. It has been submitted by him that according to the Provisions of Section 35A(iv) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter to referred as the 'Act'), it was obligatory on the part of respondent No. 2 to give reasons for the decision taken by him. As no reason has been given by the appellate authority, according to Mr. P. M. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner, the impugned order suffers from vice of non-a...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of India Vs. Rajendra G. Parikh
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-22-2003
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR61]
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Chudgar appearing on behalf of the petitioner - Bank and learned advocate Mr.Bachani for respondent workman.2. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the interim order, wherein the departmental inquiry has been declared vitiated by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference [I.T.C.] No.6 / 1998 dated 11th September, 2002. The Industrial Tribunal, Surat has come to the conclusion that in respect of the preliminary point which has been raised by the workman that departmental inquiry which has been conducted against him, has been vitiated as it violated the principles of natural justice and this contention raised by the workman has been accepted by the Industrial Tribunal while passing the orders on 11th September, 2002 and come to the conclusion that the departmental inquiry which was initiated against the respondent workman is held to be vitiated as violative of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the said interim order is unde...
Tag this Judgment!Chaudhari Ratnaji Venaji and anr. Vs. Hastimal Mohanlal and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC321; 2004ACJ1337
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Admit. Ms. Megha Jani, learned Advocate, waives notice of admission on behalf of respondent No. 2.By this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act'), the appellants-original claimants have raised a very interesting and important question as to from which date the interest could be claimed or directed to be paid by the concerned Tribunal when amount of compensation on account of road mishap awarded in application under Section 163-A of the Act, which is submitted during the pendency of the application for compensation under Section 166 of the Act.2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Banaskantha District, Palanpur, on 09-04-2002, in an order below Exh.13, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.489 of 1996, passed an award of Rs.1,52,000/= in favour of the appellants-original claimants and against the respondents-original opponent Nos.1 and 2, with running interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application under Sec. 163-A of the ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat and ors. Vs. Mulchandbhai Lavjibhai Patel and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-2003
Reported in: (2004)1GLR536
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Admit. Mr. I.S. Supheia, learned Advocate, waives notice of admission on behalf of the respondents.The sole question, which has emerged for our consideration and adjudication in this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is, as to whether the requisite period of service in the same Grade / Scale for the purpose of earning benefit of Higher Grade / Scale is to be considered in the same district or the period of service in more than one district in the same cadre in the same scale is to be counted and clubbed in terms of the provisions of para 3 (2) of the Resolution of the Government dated 16-08-1994, to which our unambiguous and explicit answer is that the requisite period to be counted is not only of particular district in the same cadre and scale, but also the period spent in a district on transfer and even at the request of the employee.2. The appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal have assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge render...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravjibhai Karsanbhai Rathod and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-2003
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC307
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. We propose to dispose of this group of 21 appeals (First Appeal Nos. 2648 to 2668 of 2003) by this judgment since they arise out of common award and the same accident.2. The claim petitions arise out of motor accident which occurred on 15th April, 2000 with tanker containing naphtha liquid (highly inflammable material) bearing registration No. GJ 5-V 4845 overturned at about 1.15 a.m. near Vakatana Village. Naphtha started spilling on the road and caught fire and resulted in fatal injuries to 15 persons and grievous injuries to others. Claims are at the instance of either heirs of deceased or those suffered personal injuries. Ashok Kumar Vijay Kumar Yadav (driver) was deleted while owner of vehicle did not file written statement nor examined witnesses nor contested the claim. The appellant filed application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act) for permission to contest the claim on merits. However, this application was rejected.3. The appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravjibhai Karsanbhai Rathod
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ381; AIR2004Guj189
Bhawani Singh, C.J. 1. We propose to dispose of this group of 21 appeals (First Appeal Nos.2648 to 2668 of 2003) by this judgment since they arise out of common award and the sameaccident.---------------------------------------------------------Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to seethe judgment ?2. The claim petitions arise out of motor accident which occurred on April 15, 2000 with Tanker containing Naphta liquid (highly inflammable material) bearing registration No.GJ-5-V-4845 overturned at about 1.15 a.m. near Vakatana village. Naphta started spilling on the road and caught fire and resulted in fatal injuries to 15 persons and grievous injuries to others. Claims are at the instance of either heirs of deceased or those sufferrd personal injuries. Ashokkumar Vijaykumar Yadav (driver) was deleted while owner of vehicle did not file written statement nor examined witnesses nor contested the claim. The appellant filed application under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles A...
Tag this Judgment!Suo-motu Vs. Jayeshkumar Vadilal Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-09-2003
Reported in: (2004)3GLR2751
Jayant Patel, J.1. The present proceedings are initiated upon the suo motu notice issued by this court (K.M.Mehta,J) while considering the case for bail in Cri.M.A.No.3829/03.2. The short facts of the case appear to be that a complaint is filed vide CR No.388/02 of Visnagar Police Station and one of the accusations in the complaint was that loan of Rs.5,38,000/- was procured by respondent-Jayeshkumar Vadilal Patel on the name of Siddheshwari Silk Mills, but there is no existence of such firm nor the amount is used for the purpose of purchase of the mill. The accused Jayeshkumar Vadilal Patel preferred bail application before the Ld.Sessions Judge being Cri.M.A.No.360/03 and ultimately the Ld.Sessions Judge released the said accused on bail as per order, dated 29.4.03. This court (Coram: K.M.Mehta,J) while passing the order on 7.7.03 upon the application being Cri.M.A.No.3829/03 filed by Ishwarbhai Tribhuvandas Patel observed at para 6 as under:'6. In this case, learned advocate for the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »