Gujarat Court October 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ajit Jayantibhai Patel Vs. Arvindbhai Devjibhai Rohit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR727]
Jayant Patel, J.1. With the consent of learned advocates for the parties matter is finally heard today.2. The short facts of the case appear to that the complaint was filed against the respondent No. 1 for offence under Prevention of Corruption Act and on the basis of the same, ACB, Baroda had investigated the matter. It appears that as such the respondent No. 1 was holding the post of Sarpanch at the Gram Panchayat. The DDO in exercise of powers under Section 59(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') suspended the respondent No. 1 from the post of Sarpanch. The said order dated 23.1.2004 is produced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. It appears that the respondent No. 1 carried the matter before the Addl. Devp. Commissioner and the Addl. Devp. Commissioner found that the decisions of this court in the case of Naranbhai Veljibhai Chaudhary v. R.S. Vaghela and Ors. reported in 1997 GLR 599 and in the case of Bikhhumiya Sarfumiya M...
Khushi Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-28-2004
Reported in: [2006]130CompCas457(Guj); (2005)2GLR1514; [2006]68SCL266(Guj)
C.K. Buch, J.1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.482 of CrPC, the present petition is filed by the petitioners for quashing and setting aside the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 207/2003 pending in the Court of ld. Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad.2. This matter was listed before this Court on earlier occasions and on 13.10.2004, ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. SN Soparkar appeared for the petitioners and had taken this Court through relevant aspects and ld. Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel Ms. Davawala had placed the version of the department as reflected in the affidavit and the documents attached in support of the affidavit i.e. page Nos. 47 to 59. When matter was listed on 25.10.2004, it was pointed out that now Ms. Davawala is not appearing on behalf of Central Government and so in the interest of justice, matter was adjourned and Registry was directed to list the matter for final disposal today.3. It has been submitted by the petitioners that as th...
Sanmukhbhai Bhikhabhai Patel and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)1GLR338
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The poignant proposition and main point in focus in this litigation revolves round:-(i) What is the right and competence of erstwhile land-owners acquired for one Public Purpose and in the event of change in such Public Purpose?(ii) Complete Divestation of right, title and interest in respect of lands acquired for one Public Purpose, mere upon change only of Public Purpose for the such lands, could give a rise to an enforceable right to restitution or return of acquired lands for erstwhile land-owners in absence of any statutory or Rule Provision, for reverting of it.2. In this Group of 67 petitions, common question is involved. They are heard together and, therefore, upon request, we propose to deal with them and decide simultaneously by the common judgment. The petitioners, by invocation of the provisions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in this Group of 67 petitions, have sought for, writs or directions to the respondents for re-grant or return of the...
Appropriate Authority Vs. Rasiklal M. Dhariwal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Guj)377; [2005]277ITR370(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. These review applications are filed by the Appropriate Authority under Section 269UG of the IT Act, 1961, in respect of purchase by Central Government of immovable properties under certain cases of transfer under Chapter XX-C of the Act. The applications are filed for recalling part of the directions given by this Court in judgment dt. 12th April, 2004 while disposing of Special Civil Appln. No. 8606 of 2004 and two cognate petitions.2. On 25th Jan., 1996, opponent Nos. 3 and 4 herein {hereinafter referred to as 'the vendors') executed an agreement to sell the property in question at Pune in favour of opponent Nos. 1 and 2 herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the purchasers' or 'vendees') for a consideration of Rs. 240 lakhs, which amount was to be paid in three instalments upon execution of the agreement on 25th Jan., 1996 (Rs. 75 lakhs), the second instalment to be paid by 10th March, 1996 (Rs. 50 lakhs) and the third and final instalment to be paid at the time of exec...
Appropriate Authority Vs. Rasiklal M. Dhariwal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-27-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN704(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.These review applications are filed by the Appropriate Authority under section 269UG of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of purchase by Central Government of immovable properties under certain cases of transfer under Chapter XX-C of the Act. The applications are filed for recalling part of the directions given by this court in judgment dated 12-4-2004 while disposing of Special Civil Appln. No. 8606 of 2004 and two cognate petitions (Judgment is reported as Shivram Vishwanath Deshmukh v. P Saxena, CIT & Ors. (2005) 193 CTR (Guj) 370-Ed.).2. On 25-1-1996, opponent Nos. 3 and 4 herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the vendors') executed an agreement to sell the property in question at Pune in favour of opponent Nos. 1 and 2 herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the purchasers' or 'vendees') for a consideration of Rs. 240 lakhs, which amount was to be paid in three instalments upon execution of the agreement on 25-1-1996 (Rs. 75 lakhs), the second instalment to be paid by 10...
Jayeshbhai Jayantibhai Maniar Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-26-2004
Reported in: IV(2005)BC208; (2005)2GLR1451
C.K. Buch, J.1. Heard Mr. A.J. Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Patel, ld. APP, appearing on behalf of respondent no.1-State.2(i) Having considered the reasons assigned by the ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar, while dealing with and disposing of the applications at Exh.29 in Criminal Case No. 348 of 2002, Exh.24 in Criminal Case No. 477 of 2002 and again at Exh.24 in Criminal Case No. 478 of 2002, whereby the ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the request to consolidate all the three cases and to try them as one single case, on the ground that four different cheques were given in one single transaction and merely because the dates of the respective cheques are different, separate prosecutions have been instituted.2(ii) The ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, after hearing the parties, dismissed all the applications, stating that there is no scope causing prejudice to the accused and all the three are distinct offences; on the contrary, it ma...
Aakash Prakash Patel Vs. Commissioner of Higher Edu.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-26-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Guj156
M.R. Shah, J.1. Rule. Mr. Dipen Desai, learned AGP waives service of rule for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Mitul Shelat, learned advocate waives service of rule for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Dhaval Dave, learned advocate waives service of rule for respondent No. 4.2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.3. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent No. 4 to refund the tuition fees paid by the petitioner for getting admission in respondent No. 4 institution (four years' tuition fees).4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has got admission in respondent No. 4 - Pharmacy College through the Joint Admission Committee and, initially, the petitioner deposited Rs. 32,000/- with the Joint Admission Committee. It is the case of the petitioner that, as, the petitioner got admi...
Ramanbhai Parshottambhai Harijan Vs. District Development Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-21-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR1089]
M.S. Shah, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Talati-cum-Mantri in the year 1971. In 1988, the petitioner was suspended on the ground that the petitioner had committed misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 2175/-. A criminal case was filed against the petitioner and the petitioner was charge sheeted in Criminal Case No. 622 of 1989. However, by judgment dated 23.4.1992, the petitioner was acquitted. While the petitioner came to be reinstated in service in view of the aforesaid order of acquittal, the Deputy District Development Officer, Surat i.e. the disciplinary authority held departmental inquiry and passed order dated 3.3.1993 under Rule 5(4) of the Gujarat Panchayat (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, 1964 imposing the penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect. The Deputy District Development Officer also passed order dated 30.6.1993 regularizing the period of suspension from 12.5.1988 to 7.4.1993 as period of leave under Rule 152 of the BCSR. Thereafter, the Taluka Devel...
Kapoor Devierwala Hotels Vs. Surat Textile Market Co-op Shops and Ware ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)3GLR2565
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. The present Civil Revision Application is filed by the petitioner under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, challenging the order passed by the District Judge, Surat, on 9th March, 1988 in Revision Application No. 3/1982, by which the learned District Judge has allowed the revision application filed by the present respondents and dismissed the Standard Rent Application No. 1026 of 1976 filed by the present petitioner.2. The petitioner herein moved an application under Section 11 of the Rent Act for fixation of standard rent of the suit premises. At that time, a stand was taken by the respondents herein before the trial Court that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and therefore, the application for fixation of standard rent is not maintainable.3. The trial Court has negatived the contention of the respondents and came to the conclusion that the Rent Act is applicable and there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the pa...
Kanjibhai Punjabhai Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-19-2004
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR582]; (2005)1GLR232
Akil Kureshi, J.1. In these proceedings, the workmen are claiming benefits under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Since common questions of law and facts arise they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Before going further, brief facts involved in these cases can be noted.3. In Civil Application No.1346 of 2004 in Special Civil Application No. 384 of 2001, the applicant-workman had filed reference (LCS) No. 157/92 before the Labour Court, Surendranagar. The Labour Court by its award dated 4.4.2000 was pleased to order reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service, however, with 25 per cent backwages. The employer, i.e. State Government, challenged the award of the Labour Court by filing the present petition being Special Civil Application No.384 of 2001 on 15.1.2001. Initially, this Court issued notice dated 17.1.2001 upon the respondent-workman, i.e. present applicant. Thereafter by the order dated 16.4.2001, the petition c...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »