Gujarat Court June 2003 Judgments
NavIn Fluorine Industries Vs. B.M. Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)3GLR2222
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. 1. These petitions are filed by a Company, Navin Flourine Industries, a unit of Mafatlal Industries Limited, challenging the judgment and awards dated 19-7-2001 passed by the Labour Court, Surat in Reference (L.C.S.) Nos. 809, 804, 814, 808 of 1999, 7 of 2000, 812, 926, 815, 813 and 810 of 1999.As the record states, these petitions were filed on 27-8-2001, but thereafter, the matters were adjourned from time to time and it was only on 18-2-2003 that the Court passed the following order in Special Civil Application No. 8197 of 2001 :'Rule returnable on 20th March, 2003.In the meanwhile, interim relief in terms of Paragraph 32(B). It will be open for the respondent, workman to file an application/ affidavit under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.' The matters were listed for final hearing on 20-3-2003, but then as the learned Advocate for the respondents, Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa filed sick note, the matters could not be taken up for final hearing and were ...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board and anr. Vs. Ketanbhai Dinkarr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-2003
Reported in: (2003)3GLR2281; (2004)ILLJ114Guj
B.J. Shethna, J. 1. Common question that arises to be addressed to by us in this judgment, is whether Labour Court was right in entertaining claim of workman, while exercising powers under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, in absence of formal adjudication by competent Court or authority when the claim was not admitted by the other side?2. All the Letters Patent Appeals are disposed of by this common judgment as they are arising out of the common judgment and order dated 9-5-200,0 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court (Coram : H.K. Rathod, J.) dismissing all the writ petitions filed by the appellants-Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for short 'the Board').3. All the aforesaid writ petitions i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 2327 and 3116 of 1984, Special Civil Application Nos. 3946 to 3950 and 3966 to 3969 of 1985, Special Civil Application Nos. 1945 to 1952 of 1987 are also disposed of by this common judgment as the same were referred to the Division ...
Tag this Judgment!Sandip Omprakash Gupta Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-11-2003
Reported in: (2004)1GLR864
H.K. Rathod, J.1. At the outset, this Could would like to refer important observations in respect of 'Personal liberty, a fundamental right' made by the Apex Court in case of Chowdarapu Raghunandan [ para-6 & 7, 2002 AIR SCW 1322 ] which reads as under :'6. In Mohd. Subrati alias Mohd. Karim v. State of West Bengal [1973] 3 SCC 250, 256] this Court observed thus :-'It must be remembered that the personal liberty of an individual has been given an honoured place in the fundamental rights which our Constitution has jealously protected against illegal and arbitrary deprivation, and that this Court has been entrusted with a duty and invested with a power to enforce that fundamental right.'7. Dealing with solitary act in a preventive detention matter, Krishna Iyer, J. in Anil Dey v. State of West Bengal [ (1974) 4 SCC 514] observed as under :-'A swallow cannot make a summer ordinarily, and a solitary fugitive act of criminality may not normally form the foundation for subjective satisfactio...
Tag this Judgment!Harakhbhai Haribhai Patel Vs. S.S. Baria
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)2GLR1530
K.A. Puj, J. 1. The petitioner, by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is challenging the order passed by the respondent No. 1 dated 21-5-2003 whereby the objections raised by the petitioner were rejected and respondent Nos. 2 to 10 were directed to cast their votes in the proposed election of Sankheda Jetpur-Pavi Taluka Ginning Pressing & Cotton Sale Co-operative Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society'). The said order was passed by the respondent No. 1 in purported exercise of powers under Rule 6(4) of the Gujarat Specified Co-operative Societies Election to Committee Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'). 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is an elected delegate for the proposed election of the Society which is a specified Society under the provisions of Section 74C of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent No. 1, the Deputy Collector, while...
Tag this Judgment!Chetankumar Omprakash Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Police
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)4GLR841
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Banna Datta for the petitioners and Mr. R.C. Kodekar, learned AGP for the respondents.The petitioners in these three petitions were dangerous persons. The petitioners in these three petitions were arrested on 3.12.2002 by the concerned police authority in connection with the offence registered against them at Kagdapith Police Station at I CR No. 417 of 2002 for the offence under section 120(B), 143, 147, 148, 307 of the IP Code and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. The Sponsoring Authority forwarded proposal to the detaining authority on 9th December, 2002. Before that, on 5.12.2002, statements of the secret witnesses were recorded by the PI, Kagdapith Police Station and the two statements which were recorded by the Senior PI, Kagdapith Police Station were verified by the detaining authority on 10.12.2002 and thereafter, on the very next day i.e. on 11.12.2002, impugned order of detention was passed by the detaining authority under s...
Tag this Judgment!ivnagar Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)2GLR1600
K.A. Puj, J.1. This Special Civil Application is filed challenging the order dated 2-5-2003 passed by the Authorised Officer and Co-operative Officer (Marketing) and District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Junagadh, the respondent No. 2-herein excluding the name of the petitioner-Society from the Voters List. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandatory direction to direct the respondent authorities to include the names of the members of the Co-operative Society in the Voters List as has been done by notice dated 22-4-2003.2. It is the case of the petitioner-Co-operative Society that the petitioner-Society had applied for reconstruction vide application dated 6-3-2003, however no action was taken by the respondent No. 2 pursuant to the said application. It is further submitted that vide agenda dated 28th March, 2003 issued by the Liquidator, certain items were to be considered in the meeting to be held on 27-3-2003 wherein the Chairman was to be appointed and one of the items was...
Tag this Judgment!Sohanlal Surajaram Visnoi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-06-2003
Reported in: (2004)2GLR1051
J.N. Bhatt, Acting C.J. 1. In this group of seven petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging interalia the detention orders passed by the respective detaining authority in exercise of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PASA Act') on various and divergent grounds, a common ground of challenge emerging in all the questioned detentions in this group is as to whether the impugned action of detention made on the basis of a solitary incident or offence, in the factual profile of each case, can be upheld by this Court, and whether the same would justify the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in reaching to the conclusion that the said solitary incident in each case was sufficient enough to detain the detenu with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of 'public order'?2. Since upon the factual profile viewed in the light of legal setti...
Tag this Judgment!Kanthubhai Khanji Vaghela Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-06-2003
Reported in: (2004)1GLR801
J.N. Bhatt, Acting C.J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner-detenu has assailed the detention order recorded by the respondent no.2, the then District Magistrate, Patna on 04.3.2003, in purported exercise of powers under Sub Section [1] of Section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 [ 'the P.B.M. Act' for short ] whereby the petitioner-detenu came to be detained for indulging in black marketing and illegally disposal of huge quantity of essential commodities, meant for the distribution of persons, covered under the Below Poverty Line Scheme in village Gochand, Taluka Sami, District Patna, wherein the petitioner was licensed to run fair price shop and was running a government authorized fair price shop in the name of 'Shri Pandit Dindayal Grahak Bhandar', contending that the order of detention is illegal, invalid, null and void, arbitrary and unconstitutional.2. The learned advocate ap...
Tag this Judgment!Usmangani Ismailbhai Minyana Vs. Commissioner of Police
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-05-2003
Reported in: (2003)4GLR1
J.N. Bhatt, Acting C.J. 1. In this group of five petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the common challenge is against the detention orders passed under Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PASA Act') on various grounds. However, the main ground of challenge in these petitions is pertaining to the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority while exercising his discretion, and as such, upon consensus, this group is being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Liberty is a basic and dynamic jurisprudential concept and philosophy, and therefore, it has constitutional and statutory safeguards for the preservation, projection and protection of the liberty of an individual. Since it is a dynamic aspect and concept, continued research is necessary to regularly assess the changing dimension and dynamics of such a constitutional right, personal right of liberty guaranteed under the Constit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›