Gujarat Court February 2003 Judgments
Shantilal Motilal Shah Thro His Heir and L.R. Vs. Divisional Controlle ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: (2003)4GLR699
K.A. Puj, J. 1. Both these petitions are arising out of the award passed by the Labour Court, Baroda in Reference no. 1219/1977 whereby the petitioner - workman in Special Civil Application no. 1957/1988 was ordered to be reinstated, but without backwages for interim period from 31/7/1975 to 19/2/1985. In Special Civil Application no. 1957/1988 the petitioner - workman was aggrieved by the decision of the Labour Court in not granting full backwages for the aforesaid interim period and in Special Civil Application no. 3717/1988 the petitioner Corporation i.e. The Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation is aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court directing the Corporation to reinstate the workman. Since both the petitions are arising out of the same award of the Labour Court they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Mr. M.D. Pandya learned advocate appearing for the Corporation in both the matters, has filed a sick note. However, both the matters are of 1988 and they are f...
Tag this Judgment!Fag Precision Bearings Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer (Enforcement)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-2003
Reported in: [2003]131STC298(Guj)
K.M. Math, J.1.FAG Precision Bearings Ltd.-petitioner has filed this petition being Special Civil Application No. 3891 of 1997 under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that this Court may issue appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside notices dated February 17, 1997 and consequent orders dated March 17, 1997 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax under Section 42(1) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the local Act') read with Rule 37-A of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the GST Rules'). The petitioner has further prayed that assessment orders for the period September 1, 1976 to August 31, 1980 be quashed and further prayed to restrain permanently respondent No. 1, the Sales Tax Officer (Enforcement), Baroda, and respondent No. 3, the Sales Tax Officer, Division 2, Baroda, from passing any assessment orders against the petitioner for the period September 1, 1976 to Dec...
Tag this Judgment!Narsinhbhai Manibhai Saija Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-2003
Reported in: (2003)4GLR90
ORDER25. After pronouncement of the above judgment, the learned Advocates for the two petitioners have addressed this court on the point of quantum of punishment. Mr. A D Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No.199/96 has argued that looking to the passage of time between the date of commission of the offence, date of the first conviction, date of dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner by the Sessions Court and the date of the pronouncement of judgment by this Court, this Court should consider the request of this petitioner about reduction of sentence. It is also submitted by him that this petitioner has lost his job, that he has not earned any benefit out of the amount alleged to have been misappropriated in the present case. That he has old parents of 80 and 75 years respectively, and has two sons - out of them one is still not settled and he is still studying. On the other hand, Mr. B M Mangukia, learned Advocate for the petitioner in Crimina...
Tag this Judgment!Nautamswami Guru Vasudev Vs. Harjibhai Nanjibhai Bhimani
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-2003
Reported in: (2004)1GLR827
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Rule. Learned Advocate Mr. Parikh waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, learned Advocate Mr. Purohit waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 3 while learned Advocate Mr. Mithani waives services of rule on behalf of the respondents Nos. 4 to 10.2. The Appeal From Order is admitted by this Court today and the same is now fixed for final hearing. This Civil Application is filed by the appellant with a prayer that during the pendency of the Civil Application, ex-parte ad-interim order passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Anand in Civil Suit No. 17/2003 be stayed. Since the original Appeal From Order is filed against the ex-parte order of the trial Court which is admitted by this Court, the question which requires to be considered in this Civil Application is whether the petitioner has made out any strong prima facie case for getting interim relief and whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, interim relief pray...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Vimalkumar Kantilal and ors. Vs. Gujarat Public Service Commissi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)2GLR1102
Jayant Patel, J. 1. Rule. Concerned learned Counsel for respondents appear and waive service of Rule. With the consent of learned Counsels for parties matters are finally heard. 2. The principal question involved in these group of petitions is : Whether it is open to the Gujarat Public Service Commission ('G.P.S.C.' for short) to apply the scaling method to raw marks scored by the candidates in optional subjects in the competitive examination for Class I and Class II Posts? and if yes, whether the method applied is on rational basis or arbitrary? The another point which incidentally arises for the consideration of this Court is regarding the declaration of the marks scored by the candidate either at preliminary examination or at main examination so as to enable the candidate concerned to apply for rechecking of marks, if it is so desired by the candidate after such declaration. 3. The short facts of the case are that the. petitioners are the candidates who appeared in the competitive e...
Tag this Judgment!Husen Bhenu Malad Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ5070; (2003)4GLR916
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. This appeal which is filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code' for short) read with Section 36B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the NDPS Act' for short) through jail, is directed against a judgment and order dated February 4, 1997 rendered by Special Judge, Kachchh at Bhuj, in Special Case No. 122 of 1994 by which appellants/original accused Nos. 1 to 5 ('the accused' for short) have been convicted of the offences under Section 20(b)(ii) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 15 years and fine of Rs.1 lakh, i.d., S.I. for two years whereas A-1 and A-4 have also been convicted of the offences punishable under Section 23 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 15 years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh i.d., S.I. for two years. It is also ordered by the learned Special Judge that both the sentences awarded to A-1 and A-4 to run concurrently and all th...
Tag this Judgment!Amrutaben Budhaji Thakore (Decd.) Through Her Legal Heirs Vs. Nitaben ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Guj292; (2003)2GLR1051
J.R. Vora, J. 1. Heard Mr. D.C. Dave, learned Advocate for the petitioner. 2. This Revision Application is filed against the order passed by the learned Small Causes Judge, Ahmedabad in H.R.P. Suit No. 1993 of 1993 on 29th day of November, 2002 below an application Exh. 74 filed by the present petitioner, i.e. original defendants of the said Civil Suit under Order 32, Rules 2 and 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. As per the brief facts one Nitaben Somabhai Patel, plaintiff No. 1 and Vishnubhai Somabhai Patel, plaintiff No. 2, both jointly filed the abovesaid rent suit against the present petitioner for the arrears of rent as well as for eviction. In the abovesaid suit, at the stage of recording of evidence, an application Exh. 74 was preferred by the present petitioner stating that as a Power of Attorney holder of Nitaben, plaintiff No. 2 Vishnubhai has maintained the abovesaid suit and entered in the witness box. Right from the filing the suit, defendants have declared that plaint...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Arvindbhai Saburbhai Solanki
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)4GLR541
Jayant Patel, J. 1. Rule. Mr.Jasani appearing for respondent No.1 waives service of rule. So far as respondent No.2 is concerned this court when passed the order on 11.9.02 had issued notice for final disposal and the respondent No.2 is served but nobody has appeared. With the consent of parties matter is taken up for final hearing today. 2. The short facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 was appointed as Peon in the school of respondent No.2. It is the case of the Govt that one post of Peon was sanctioned as per order, dated 9.11.1994 issued by the State Govt but the post was to accrue with fixed salary of Rs.600/-p.m.only. After the order dated 9.11.1994 advertisement was issued and ultimately the respondent No.1 was appointed as per letter dated 25.11.1994. A perusal of the appointment order, copy whereof is at annexure 'E' to the petition, shows that there is a note for appointment on fixed salary of Rs.600/-p.m. and the respondent No.1 has signed the agreement with all te...
Tag this Judgment!Vasantry J. Khamkati Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)4GLR245
D.P. Buch, J.1. This is a revision application under section 397. read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,. 1973 (for short, 'the Code') challenging the judgment and. order passed in Criminal Appeal No.74/86 dated 24.8.1992. under which the learned Appellate Judge dismissed the. said appeal of the present petitioner and confirmed the. judgment and conviction order recorded on 3.9.1986 in. criminal case no.1927/84 convicting the present. petitioner for offence under section 7 read with section. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and. sentenced him to undergo S.I. for three months. The. petitioner was also directed to pay fine of Rs.500/- and. in default of payment of fine, he was required to suffer. further S.I. for 15 days..2. The facts of the case of the original complainant. before the trial court may be briefly stated as follows:.That original complainant-Ambalal K Patel was. working as Food Inspector at Bhavnagar. He visited the. shop of the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Harshad Babubhai AmIn Vs. Pravinaben Chandrakant Patel and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Guj236
ORDERD.S. Sinha, J.1. Heard Mr. Mayank Desai forMr. N.M. Shah, learned counsel of the applicant.2. By means of instant application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter called 'the Code', the applicant, who figures as defendant in Civil Suit No. 932 of 1989, instituted in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad, between Smt. Pravinaben Chandrakant Patel and others and him, seeks to assail the order dated 9th January, 2003 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, City Court, Ahmedabad, whereby the suit has been transferred from the file of Judge, City Civil Court No. 16 to the file of Shri P.B. Desai, Judge, City Civil Court No. 8.3. The plaintiffs moved an application dated 6th January, 2003, asserting, inter alia, that they were not likely to get justice and there were all chances of injustice. On this premise, they made the following prayer:'(A) Hon'ble Court be pleased to Stay the hearing of the matter and ordered 'Not before me' and send back.'4. In the cir...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »