Gujarat Court August 2003 Judgments
Multan Halekhan Mev Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-07-2003
Reported in: (2004)1GLR91
J.R. Vora, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the present appellants original accused No. 1 to 6 of Sessions Case No. 67 of 2001 and Sessions Case No. 105 of 2001 of the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajkot against the judgment and order recorded on 7th September, 2002, convicting the present appellants for the charges levelled against them under Sections 325, 342, 395, 397, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, and sentencing each of them for the imprisonment of three years for the offence proved against each of them for the Arms Act and fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo three months imprisonment, for the charges levelled against each of the appellant under Sections 395, 397 each of the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment of seven years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment of one year. However no separate sentence was awarded for the charges under secs.325 and 342 of the IPC while each of th...
Tag this Judgment!Shambhubhai Jethabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-07-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Guj155; (2004)1GLR772
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. With the consent of learned counsel for parties both the Misc. Civil Application No. 1647/02 and Special Civil Application No. 10865/02 are taken for final hearing today.2. Heard Mr. Raval for the applicant and Mr. Joshi for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Vyas for respondent No. 5.3. Having heard the learned advocates for parties it appears that the Dy. Secretary who passed the order on behalf of the State Govt was not holding the charge of Dy. Secretary (appeals) when he signed the order, dated 7/10/02 because even in the affidavit in reply which is filed by Mr. G.P. Raval, Dy. Secretary it has been mentioned that Mr. Machchhar who has signed the order was relieved as Dy. Secy (Appeals) on 23.9.02. The contention as sought to be raised on behalf of the State Govt is that a draft judgment was prepared and it was forwarded to the Secretary and the concerned Minister for approval. However, no changes or alterations are made by the Secretary as well as by the conc...
Tag this Judgment!Jetalben Jayantibhai Parmar and ors. Vs. Gujarat Secondary and Higher ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)3GLR2396
K.A. Puj, J. 1. Following Special Civil Applications are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the cancellation of result of the subjects of the Post Basic Stream of Standard 12th as mentioned in the respective orders passed by the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board, Gandhinagar.Sr. No.Spl.C.A. No.Name of Petitioner.Irregularity committed in Subject/s.Type of Irregularity(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)1.7962of 2003 JetalbenJ. Parmar Samaj Navrachna Triangle Mark 2.7963of 2003 Kalpesh V. Chaudhari Krushi Gopalan-2 Triangle Mark 3.7964of 2003 Chandrikaben G. Patel SamajNavrachna, Sahakar.Triangle Mark 4.7965of 2003 RanjanbenV. ChandramamiyaSahakar Triangle Mark Use of black pen 5.8202of 2003 ChandrikabenD. Parmar KrushiGopalan-2 Triangle Mark 6.8312of 2003 LatabenC. Parmar SahakarTriangle Mark 7.8293of 2003 Solanki Kanjibhai B. Krushi- 1 Embossed Seat Number 8.8294of 2003 DesaiJitendra S. (Minor)Panchayatiraj& Krushi- 1Embossed Seat Number 9.8295of 2003 Des...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Ramesh Mopabhai Rathod
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)3GLR2590; (2004)IILLJ434Guj
J.N. Bhatt, Acting C.J. 1. By this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent at the instance of the State of Gujarat, the challenge is against the judgement of the learned Single Judge, rendered, on 1.4.2002, in writ petition, whereby, the petition against the award dated 19th December, 2000 in Ref. (LCR) No. 415 of 1988 came to be rejected, upholding the said award and inter-alia holding that the plea of workmen having not worked for 240 days, and that the unit of Forest Department manufacturing polythene bags is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, raised on behalf of the petitioner appellant before us, is not acceptable. 2. We have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the parties, who have taken us through the entire testimonial as well as documentary evidence during the course of submissions before us. We have also given our anxious thoughts and considerations to the proposition of law and correct interpretation of the prov...
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman/Secreary Vs. Patel Tushar Maganlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: (2004)1GLR529
P.B. Majmudar1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing hearing today.2. Byfilingthispetition, the petitioner-Management has challenged the order passed by the Tribunal at Annexure `F', in Application No.18 of 2002. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has granted interim mandatory order, by which the respondent-Lecturer is ordered to be continued in service initially upto 31.7.2002. The Court is informed that, by another order dated 5.12.2002, the said interim relief granted earlier is continued till the decision of the main Application. It is not in dispute that the main application is still pending. The respondent No.1 herein was appointed as a Lecturer in the college by an order dated 17.7.2000 on probation for a period of two years. Thereafter, by order dated 15.4.2002, his services were terminated, to be effective from 15th May, 2002. The said order is passed during the period when the respondent was on probation. The said order was challeng...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalsinh Bhimsinh Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: (2003)3GLR2656
J.R. Vora, J. 1. This is the Revision Application filed against an order passed by 4th Fast Track Court, Rajpipla, as Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, on 6th of February, 2003, in Session Case No. 52/92 below Exh. 3 Application filed by present accused in that case, for discharging him.2. As per the brief facts of the case, certain employees of Gujarat Spinners Mill Colony Limited had gone on a strike due to disturbance between management and the labourers. After obtaining police security, the management decided to start productions. Some of the labourers willingly co-operated. A group of SRP personnel in addition to police security were also stationed at the gate of the said Mill. The incident appeared to have occurred on 5.11.1989 and the Management had decided to start production on 6.11.1989. The police personnel, as above said, were on duty. At that time, one truck entered towards the gate for loading of goods produced in the Mill. The labourers, who were on strike, in the shape of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad District Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Sureshbhai Babubhai Sunara
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: (2003)4GLR939
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Against the Judgment and order dated 1.7.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, allowing the Special Civil Application No. 10725 of 2001, filed by the respondents petitioners, the original respondent No. 1 - Ahmedabad District Co-operative Bank Ltd. has filed this Letters Patent Appeal.2. The respondents - original petitioners claimed to be the members of Vatva Kadamgiri Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. (for short 'the Society'). They had approached this Court by way of writ petition i.e. Special civil Application No. 10725 of 2001 against the impugned order dated 17.8.2001 passed by the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in Lavad Appeal No. 68 of 2000.3. It is the case of the respondents - original petitioners that the erstwhile Organizer and the developer of the society, viz. Shri Naranbhai Pandya and others had obtained loan of Rs. 18,13,000/- from the Appellant - Bank. It is the case of the original petitioners that erstwhil...
Tag this Judgment!Shobhnaben D/O Pyarelal Kanojia Vs. Devendra Omprakashbhai Oberoi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: (2004)1GLR893
Kundan Singh, J.1. Rule.2. By means of this petition the petitioner sought for transfer of the Hindu Marriage Petition No. 96/2002 filed by her husband opponent which is pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baroda to a Court having competent jurisdiction at Himmatnagar.3. It is stated that the petitioner is residing with her old widow mother and brother at village Modasa within the jurisdiction of the Court at Modasa, District Himmatnagar after she has been driven out by her husband opposite party from her in-laws house. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized in the month of October, 1998. Both the petitioner as well as the respondent lived together for about three years and gave birth to a female child. Due to demand of illegal dowry, mental and physical torture given to the petitioner by the respondent, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights before the Civil Judge (Se...
Tag this Judgment!Patanjali J. Mishra and ors. Vs. Gujarat Public Service Commission and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-02-2003
Reported in: (2003)3GLR2510
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. These matters were admitted in May, 2000. Subsequently, notice was issued to the State Government, making it returnable on 28th July, 2003. Till today, the State has not cared to enter appearance. It is presumed that the State is not interested in the present proceedings. The matters are proceeded with after hearing Dr. Sinha for the petitioners and Mr. Shah, who is appearing for Mr. D. N. Patel, learned Advocate for the G.P.S.C.With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. The petitioners, who are possessing the qualification of B.E. (Civil) are in the service of the respondent-State as Assistant Engineers.The petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petitions for the issuance of a writ of mandamus for quashing and setting aside the impugned communication of the G.P.S.C. dated 15-12-1999 and further, for directing the G.P.S.C. to consider the candidature of the petitioners for recruitment to the post of Deput...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pushpaben Hirabhai Mutchadia
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-02-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC516; 2005ACJ1062; AIR2004Guj153
Jayant Patel, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Soni waives service of rule for respondents. With the consent of learned advocates for parties matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner challenging the legality and validity of the order, dated 4.3.02 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Aux), Rajkot below Exh.14 in MACP No. 1311/01 whereby the application for joining owner and insurance company of the truck as party is dismissed.3. Heard Mr. Sood for the petitioner and Mr. Soni for the respondents.4. The only question involved in this petition is whether the learned tribunal is justified in rejecting the application for impleading the owner and insurance company of the truck as party or not when as per the say of the petitioner-Insurance company to some extent the liability can be said to be of the truck owner and the insurance company.5. The short facts of the case appear to be that the accident took place of the motorcycle with mini-bus an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »