Gujarat Court July 2003 Judgments
Shushilaben Pravinbhai Thakkar Vs. Sub Registrar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-31-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Guj121; (2003)3GLR2752
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr.Sood, learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. The only short point involved in this petition is whether the authority was justified in imposing the penalty for registration of the documents if the party did not present himself for confessing the execution of the document on account of the injunction granted by the competent Court and the higher forum.3. The short facts of the case are that on 18-6-2001, petitioner No.2 sold the land to petitioner No.1 and for such purpose sale-deed was executed. The sale-deed was presented for registration by the purchaser. However, on 19-6-2001, one Mr.Vashrambhai Kukabhai Bharawad filed Special Civil Suit No.160/2001 against petitioner No.2/1 to 2/6 and the learned Civil Judge granted injunction of maintaining status-quo qua transfer of the land. Petitioner No.1 was not impleaded as party and, therefore, the document...
Tag this Judgment!Apex Electricals Ltd. Vs. Icici Bank Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: [2003]117CompCas412(Guj); (2003)2GLR1785; [2003]46SCL592(Guj)
ORDERSAfter the pronouncement of the judgment, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners requested that the ad interim relief which was granted earlier may continue for a period of four weeks so as to enable the petitioners to examine and decide as to whether the petitioners should resort to any further steps for challenging the judgment or for submitting the reply to the Bank. Some of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners also submitted that the stay was granted pending the petition in only certain matters and, therefore, the uniformity may be maintained.The learned counsel appearing for the Bank have objected to such request and they submitted that in large number of the matters though stay was not granted, the Bank, on its own, have not taken any further action.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since 15 days time is already granted from today to the petitioners to submit reply to the Bank, the Bank would not take any action prior that to. So far as...
Tag this Judgment!Arunbhai Madhubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)3GLR1952
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocate Mr. V. H. Thakore for the petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. Kanabar for respondent No. 2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Desai appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1.2. This Court has issued notice on 8th October, 2002, after considering the relevant regulation of the respondent No. 2 and this Court has made it clear that notice has been issued for final disposal returnable on 28th October, 2002.3. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the punishment order dated 19th April, 2002 wherein the disciplinary authority has imposed punishment of censure and suspension period from 5th March, 2001 to 30th July, 2001 is treated as suspension period and the same has been directed to be considered as a leave without pay. It is necessary to note here that there is no reply filed by the respondents. The Appeal filed by the petitioner against said punishment is also rejected by the Appellate Authority.4. Initially, the sus...
Tag this Judgment!Chief Secretary Vs. Kothari and Associates
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)3GLR2177
K.M. Mehta, J.1. The State of Gujarat, appellant, original defendant, has filed this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against judgment and decree dated 4-5-1991 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Anand, in Civil Suit No. 22 of 1985 filed by M/s. Kothari and Associates, original-plaintiff. The learned Judge by his impugned judgment was pleased to partly decree the suit of the plaintiff. The learned Judge was pleased to direct that the defendants do pay to the plaintiff Rs. 13,61,574-00 (Rupees thirteen lakh sixty one thousand five hundred seventy four) together with interest on the said amount at the rate of 12% per annum from 7-8-1983 till realisation of decretal amount.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :2.1 M/s. Kothari & Associates, original-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of 'Engineers and Contractors. The Executive Engineer, Anand, Irrigation Division, Anan...
Tag this Judgment!Natvarbhai Pitamberbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ215
D.H. Waghela, J.1. This application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by one of the persons accused of the offences punishable under sections 167, 407, 420, 409, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code as described in the F.I.R. dated 6.6.2003 which is registered in Visnagar Police Station as C.R. No.176 of 2003. The petitioner has admittedly been one of the founding members and directors of the co-operative society named as SHREE KARMAMVIR SANKALCHAND CASTOR COMPLEX CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. and the offences alleged against the accused persons arise from transaction of loan to that society by a co-operative bank called 'VISNAGAR NAGARIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD., VISNAGAR'. Both these institutions are, for the sake of convenience and brevity, described hereinafter as 'the Society' and 'the Bank' respectively. It is alleged in the said F.I.R. that the accused No.1 in the list of the accused persons also happened to be the chairman of the bank...
Tag this Judgment!Gsrtc Through General Manager Vs. Fatehsinh Chhatrasinh Raj
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ225Guj
J.N. Bhatt, Acting C.J. 1. By this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, serious challenge is made by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'GSRTC') against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 6.5.2002 rendered in Special Civil Application No. 14009 of 1993, whereby, the writ petitions filed by both the parties came to be partly allowed, the award dated 23.4.1992 passed by the Labour Court, Bharuch, in Reference (LCB) No. 310/83 [old No. 521/90] came to be set aside, and the GSRTC was directed to reinstate the respondent-workman as BADLI WORKMAN to his original post at original seniority list with continuity of service without backwages for the interim period from the date of termination till the date of award, but with full backwages from the date of award till the date of actual reinstatement. It is in this context that the appellant-GSRTC has preferred the instant appeal by invocation of Clause 15 of the Letters Pa...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. State Bank of Saurashtra and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: (2004)1GLR213
K.A. Puj, J.1. These two First Appeals are filed by the appellants in their respective First Appeals against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) at Bhavnagar on 31st January, 1978 in Special Civil Suit No. 45 of 1968. The First Appeal No. 718 of 1978 is filed by the State of Gujarat as well as the Gujarat State Textile Corporation Limited, who were the defendant Nos. 12 and 13 in the Special Civil Suit No. 45 of 1968 and were aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) holding them liable only to the extent of Rs. 38,00,614-30 ps., as specified in Deed of Guarantee. The First Appeal No. 930 of 1978 is filed by the original-defendant Nos. 2 to 10. The original-defendant Nos. 2 to 7 who are the appellant Nos. 1 to 6 in the First Appeal No. 930 of 1978 have challenged the judgment and decree holding them liable for the amount of Rs. 95 lakhs. The original-defendant Nos. 8 to 11, who are the appellant Nos. 7 to 1...
Tag this Judgment!Khatijaben Musa Ghumra Vs. Gadiyara Khatri Gulam HussaIn Abdul Karim
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: (2004)1GLR849
Jayant Patel, J.1. Leave to delete respondent Nos 3,4 & 5 since they are formal party and they were co-defendants.2. Rule. Mr.Kakkad waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos 1 & 2. With the consent of the parties matter is taken up for final hearing today.3. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner filed Regular C.S.No.436/98 praying for declaration and perpetual injunction and also for transaction of sale which was valued at Rs.50,000/-. At the relevant point of time the Ld.Civil Judge (SD) had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit upto the limit of Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner moved the application to the learned trial judge being application-Exh.49 raising objection that since there are two independent prayers the suit can not be tried by the court of CJ(JD) since the valuation will have to be made for declaration and perpetual injunction which should be Rs.300/- in addition to the relief against sale deed for which suit was valued at Rs.50,000/...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR368]
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Heard learned Sr. Advocate Mr. KS Nanavati for the petitioner Co.; Mr. M.S. Rao, learned AGP for the respondent State. Notice issued by this court has been served upon the respondent No.3. The docket suggests the name of Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned advocate for respondent NO. 3 but nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent no.3 when the matter was called out. Hence, the matter has been taken up for hearing and has been considered for final disposal in absence of respondent no.3. In this petition, initially while issuing the notice to the respondents, ad.interim relief in terms of para 13(B) of the petition was granted by this court. 2. According to the petitioner company, all the three unions raised demands by their separate charter of demands against the petitioner company on different dates seeking wage revision and change in service conditions. The demands raised by the three unions were admitted in conciliation proceedings bearing cases no. 145/01, 146/01 and 143/...
Tag this Judgment!Satyanarayan B. Sharma Vs. A.L. Dineu
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: (2004)2GLR1055
K.A. Puj, J.1. Special Civil Application No. 4653 of 2003 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dtd.01.04.2003 passed by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No. 94/2003 reversing the order passed by the Board of Nominees Court, Ahmedabad below an application Exh. 6 in Laved Case No. 1979/2002 on 20.08.2002.2. Special Civil Application No. 5964/2003 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking prayer for quashing and setting aside the action of the respondent Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (B.S.N.L.) and respondent No.3 of attempting to install a telephone exchange in the residential society contrary to law based on the order alleged to have been obtained by misrepresentation and bogus documents. The petitioner has also prayed for the direction to the District Registrar (Rural) of the Cooperative Societies to produce the copies of the Audit Reports, remarks, records pertaining to the office be...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »