Gujarat Court August 2003 Judgments
Manager V.J. Auto Engineering Works Vs. Sherkhan Ahmedkhan Khokhar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-18-2003
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR527]; (2004)1GLR300
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Deepak R. Dave on behalf of the applicants - original respondents and learned advocate Mr. D.J. Bhatt for opponent - original petitioner - workman, so also, the learned AGP Mr. N.D. Gohil for opponent No. 2.2. This application, initially, circulated before this Court on 8.8.2003 and on that occasion, learned advocate Mr. Deepak Dave for the applicants had argued the matter at length and since this Court was not inclined to allow the application and when this Court was about to pass the order rejected the present application, at that time, learned advocate Mr. Deepak Dave requested this Court not to pass rejecting the application and requested to grant of some time to enable him to seek instructions from his client about withdrawal of this matter by adjourning this matter for today. Today also, when this matter is taken up for hearing, learned advocate Mr. Dave again has requested this Court to show some indulgence but today also this Court h...
Tag this Judgment!Parabada Gram Panchayat Vs. Collector
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)4GLR973
K.A. Puj, J. 1. Since these two Special Civil Applications filed by Parbada Gram Panchayat under Article 226 of the Constitution of India involve common issue, the same are being disposed of by this Common Judgment.2. What is challenged in Special Civil Application No. 9745 of 1999 is the action of the respondent authorities directing the petitioner Gram Panchayat to hand over the record of Survey Nos. 282 to 299, 300/1, 300/2, 312 and 309 situated in the local limits of Parbada Gram Panchayat to the City Survey Superintendent, Himatnagar.3. It is the case of the petitioners that the Collector of District, Sabarkantha, passed an order on 30.6.1986 directing to include the above referred Survey numbers into City Survey of Himatnagar, by exercising his powers under Section 7 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code [ hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' ] and to delete the said Survey numbers from the Parbada Gram Panchayat. The said order was challenged by the petitioner Gram Panchayat in appea...
Tag this Judgment!Swati Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vrajlal Tapubhai Lodhia @ Vajubhai ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)3GLR2558
R. M. Doshit, J. 1. This Revision Application under Section 115 C.P.C. has been preferred by the judgment-debtor against the order dated 13th September, 2001 made by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara on Non-Judicial Misc. Civil Application No. 10 of 2001 and against the order dated 1st October, 2001 made by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Rajkot in Special Execution Application No. 154 of 2001.2. The petitioner herein had instituted Special Civil Suit No. 303 of 2000 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara against the respondents-defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,21,18,013-00 and for other reliefs. The said dispute was settled out of the Court and a decree was passed on 11th September, 2000 in terms of the consent terms. Pursuant to the said consent decree, the defendants (claiming to be the judgment-creditors under the consent decree) moved above-referred Non-Judicial Misc. Application No. 10 of 2001 under Section 39 C.P.C. for transfer of decree to the Civil Court...
Tag this Judgment!Zaranben Rasikbhai Patel and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)3GLR2054
K.A. Puj, J. 1. The following petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the decision of the respondent-authorities to make sudden changes in the admission criteria of P.T.C. Courses for the Academic Year 2003-2004.Sr. No.Case No.Name of Petitioner/sSubject-matter of the petition(1)(2)(3)(4)1.9817/03Zaranben Rasikbhai Patel & Others. Deduction of 15 marks. 2.9763/03Patel Vijaykumar Jayamilal & Ors. Deduction of 15 marks. 3.9809/03N. D. Patel & Others. Deductionof 15 marks. 4.9837/03HardikabenGovindsinh Rathod & Ors. Deduction of 15 marks. 5.9980/03PanchalDevendrabhai Ishwarlal & Anr. Deduction of 15 marks. 6.10000/03PatelKajal A. Deductionof 15 marks. 7.10355/03GaurangkumarNatvarlal Patel Deductionof 15 marks. 8.10374/03SmitabenJivanlal Vania & Ors. Deductionof 15 marks. 9.10380/03HimanshukumarBabubhai Patel & Ors. Deductionof 15 marks. 10.10388/03KundanbenAmridal Vagliela Deductionof 15 marks. 11.10467/03PatelVijaykumar Amrutlal Deductionof 15 mark...
Tag this Judgment!Lok Adhikar Sangh Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)3GLR2046
J. N. Bhatt, Acting C.J.1. Rule, service of which is waived by learned A.G.P. Ms. Harsha Devani for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 whereas, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. D.N. Patel waives service for respondent No. 5.2. The petitioner, by invocation of provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has sought direction from this Court that respondent No. 1 be directed to frame rules under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and bring them into operation, as expeditiously as possible.3. The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (LIII of 1986) is designed and provided for the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of neglected or delinquent juveniles. It also provides the mechanism for adjudication of certain matters relating to and disposition of delinquent juveniles. It cannot be gainsaid that the legislative mechanism and statutory provisions in the Act as well as subsequently in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Karsanbhai Melabhai Desai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: (2004)1GLR566
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the respondent for the offences under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dehgam in Criminal Case No. 1115 of 1992.2. As per the complaint of the Food Inspector at exh.1, the complainant had visited the shop on 20-5-1992 and purchased sample of loose ghee on 21-4-1992 at 8.45 in the morning in village Bahiyal of Dehgam Taluka. The sample was collected in presence of a panch witness and sent for analysis. Presence of turmeric powder was found in it. As per the report of the Public Analyst, it was not as per the standard prescribed in Appendix-B to the said Act at Srl.No. A:11:02:21. The accused was, therefore, tried for the offence under Section 16(1A)(ii) of the said Act under Section 7(v) thereof. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Dehgam, however, by the aforesaid order dated 22nd September 1995 made in Summary ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal Aggarwal Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ1227; (2004)1GLR626
ORDER:26. After the pronouncement of judgement, Mr. Saujani for Mr. Rajni Mehta requests that the operation of the judgement may be stayed for some time so as to enable him to approach before the higher forum. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to accept the request and hence rejected....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Subodhchandra S. Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-07-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Guj)393; [2004]265ITR445(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. This reference under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act) is at the instance of the Revenue and the following three questions have been referred by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' for our opinion :'1. Whether, in law and on facts, the Tribunal was justified, in entertaining miscellaneous application filed by the assessee and allowing the same by quashing the order of the CIT(A) by holding that the transaction did not result in taxable capital gains ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was no capital gains in the transaction in question ? 3. Whether, when the Tribunal held under order dt. 27th Nov., 1986, that there was no genuine conversion of the shares and debentures into stock-in-trade before transferring the same into partnership firm, the Tribunal was right in law in entertaining the claim of the assessee that the transfer did not result into taxable capital gains ?' The ass...
Tag this Judgment!Bhil Kanji Bhagwan (Since Decd.) Through His Heirs Laxmiben Kanji and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-07-2003
Reported in: (2003)3GLR2080
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Bhil Kanji Bhagwan, petitioner-original defendant since deceased through his heirs and legal representatives have filed this Civil Revision Application under Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act, challenging the judgment and decree dated 30th April, 1979, passed by the learned District Judge, Rajkot, in Civil Appeal No. 109 of 1978. The learned Judge by his impugned judgment was pleased to allow the appeal and was pleased to quash and set aside the judgment and decree dated 31st August, 1978, passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Rajkot in Regular Civil Suit No. 886 of 1975 filed by original plaintiff Karsan Bijal and others respondents herein.2. The facts giving rise to this Civil Revision Application are as under :2.1 Karsan Bijal and others - plaintiffs (respondent No. 1 in the petition since deceased through his legal heirs and representatives) had given the suit premises situated at Juna Bhilwas, Sheri No. 7, Near Jansatta Press at Rajkot (hereinafter referre...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Murtiyan Madrasi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-07-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ539
M.S.SHAH, J. 1. This appeal is a telling example of how the delay in hearing of a conviction appeal deprives a convict of his right to persuade the Court to reduce the sentence, if not the right to declare him as innocent, and thusrender the right of appeal illusory. The appellant has already been released on 11.10.2002.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.10.1995 rendered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No. 55 of 1995convicting the appellant-accused of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 366A and 376 IPC and sentencing the appellant to undergo RI for 3 years andfine of Rs.5,000/- in default RI for one year for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC; RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default RI for one year for theoffence punishable under Section 366A IPC; and RI for 8 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default RI for 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. Thelearned Sessions Jud...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »