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.
Executive Engineer Vs. Vadansingh Madansinh Parmar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-19-2004
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR870]
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Amit Panchal for the petitioner and Mr. Bukhari for the respondent workman. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner department has challenged the award made by the labour court, Himatnagar in Reference No. 477 of 1996 dated 25th May, 1997 wherein the labour court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages from 31st July, 1992 in favour of the present respondent. Initially, this court stayed the operation of the award and the statement of the learned advocate Mr. Bukhari was recorded that the respondent will not press for wages Under Section 17B of the ID Act till the final disposal of this petition. On that condition, hearing of the present petition was expedited. Respondent has filed affidavit in reply to the present petition.2. Learned advocate Mr. Panchal raised the contention that the respondent was appointed or engaged on the basis of contingency and he was not engag...
Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-19-2004
Reported in: 2005(182)ELT148(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J. 1. RULE. Service of Rule is waived by learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Shri Jitendra Malkan for the respondents. At the request of the learned Advocates, the petition is finally heard today.2. As an appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara and the issue involved in this application is only with regard to the amount of pre-deposit, we would not like to say anything on the merits of the case which is pending before the appellate authority.3. The short question which has been involved in the petition is with regard to the amount of pre-deposit. An application for waiver of the amount of pre-deposit had been turned down by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise and Customs under his order dated 27-7-2004 and being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court.4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Jitendra Malkan appearing for the respondents has taken a ...
Vishnu Dyeing and Printing Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-2004
Reported in: 2005(184)ELT246(Guj)
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner No. 1-Vishnu Dyeing & Printing Mills (P) Ltd. is engaged in the business of dyeing and printing works. The petitioner No. 2 is the Director of the petitioner No. 1 Company. On 24-4-1998 the Assistant Commissioner along with Superintendent (Technical), Central Excise, Division-II, Surat-I and the Inspector visited premises of petitioner No. 1 at 6.00 p.m. and carried out search in presence of the panchas noticing that certain processed fabrics were found in excess of the recorded stock and accordingly they were seized by the authorities. Search of the premises of the petitioner yielded such kacha delivery challans and four pocket diaries, which were seized from behind Mr. Bagdawala working with petitioner No. 1 company as the Asst. Dyeing Master, who admitted recovery of note books recovered under the panchnama and made a statement that the clearance of the processed fabric was without payment of duty.2. After completing the investigation show caus...
Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited Vs. Ramesh D. Devnani
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Guj66; (2005)2GLR1202
D.N. Patel, J. 1. The present petition has been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby, the petitioner has challenged the order dated in Civil Suit no. 1917 of 2004 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, mainly on the ground that the Ahmedabad City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the civil suit in view of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, especially in view of section 145 thereof and has also prayed to quash and set aside the order below application exh. 15 in Civil Suit no. 1917 of 2004 passed by the Ahmedabad City Civil Court, Ahmedabad.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submitted that the above civil suit has been preferred by the respondent for a declaration that the action of the petitioner of disconnection of electricity of the respondent(original plaintiff) bearing customer service no. 927337 of Naranpura zone, is illegal, unreasonable and violative of principles of natural justice and f...
Nilofar and Nilam Usman Shaikh Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: (2004)3GLR2630
J.R. Vora, J.1. Applicants of both these revision applications are amongst the accused of Sessions case No. 32/2004. In the said case, in CR No. II-3002/2003, a charge-sheet came to be submitted against all the accused for the offences punishable under sec. 3,4,5,6,7 and 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The case being triable by the Court of Sessions by virtue of sec. 6 and 9 of the said Act, was committed to the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad. The applicant of Criminal Revision Application No. 628/2004 Nilofar @ Nilam daughter of Ushman Shaikh, vide application ex. 14, and applicant Hasmukh Rameshchandra Shah of Criminal Revision Application No. 641/2004, preferred an application at Exh. 3 to discharge them from the charges levelled against them. Both the said applications came to be dismissed vide order of ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 19, Ahmedabad, dated 5.8.2004, and hence, these revision applications.2. Upon the request of the ld. counsels for the parties, both ...
JaIn Transport Services Vs. Inspector of Motor Vehicles
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Guj51; (2004)3GLR2689
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. In all the above petitions a common question of law is involved and therefore they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgement.2. The petitioners in the above petitions are owners of different motor vehicles registered under different authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In these petitions the petitioners have challenged the Notification issued by the Joint Director of Transport, Gujarat, Ahmedabad, dated 9th August 2002 and the consequential actions on the part of the respondent authorities i.e. imposition of fine on the ground of excess load and detention of vehicles.3. The grievance of the petitioners can be summarised as under:3.1 After purchase of the vehicles in question the petitioners introduce certain modifications and changes under the supervision of experts as permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Addition of a...
Sameer Engineering Works Vs. District Collector
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Guj81; (2005)1GLR215
K.A. Puj, J.1. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 07.10.2004 in MCA Nos. 1709 and 1728 of 2004 in S.C.A. Nos. 1462 & 1448 of 2003, these two petitions are taken up for hearing today.2. Earlier, these two petitions were disposed of by this Court vide common judgment and order dated 29.09.2003. The said judgment and order was challenged by the original petitioners before the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. Nos. 1378 & 1379 of 2003 and while disposing of the said two appeals on 22.07.2004, the Division Bench has remanded the matter to this Court for the purpose of deciding the issue, namely, whether the respondent No. 4 - Vice Chairman of the Bank can lawfully purchase, directly or indirectly, any property of a member of the society sold for the recovery of his dues to the society under Rule 35 (2) of the Rules.3. It is worthwhile to mention here that after the judgment and order dated 29.09.2003 was passed, the original petitioners have filed review application being M....
PWD Employees' Union Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: (2005)1GLR262
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta for the appellant. Learned Advocate General Mr. S.N. Shelat is appearing for the Respondents State of Gujarat. In this appeal, order made by the learned Single Judge (Coram : Jayant Patel, J.) in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 2239 of 2003 in Special Civil Application No. 7703 of 2002 dated February 25, 2004 is under challenge.Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Local Papers may be allowed to see he Judgment? Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? ...
Gujarat Vidhyapith Vs. Becharbhai Nagajibhai Bharwad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: (2005)1GLR407
Akil Kureshi, J.1. Since these petitions involve identical questions of law and facts, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Short facts leading to the present petitions are that the petitioner No. 1, Gujarat Vidyapith had employed the respondent No. 1 in each of these petitions in the Press run by the petitioner No. 1. It is the case of the petitioners that the Gujarat Vidyapith is declared as deemed University under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act. It is not in dispute that the Press run by the petitioners called Prakashan Mandir was closed down permanently and on account of this closure, the respondent No. 1 in each of the petitions had to be terminated from service. The petitioners, therefore, by orders dated 26th October, 1997, terminated the services of the respondent No. 1 in each of the petitions. The said respondents employees challenged the action of the petitioners before this High Court by filing Special Civil A...
Maruti Interior Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: 2005(182)ELT145(Guj)
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Rule. Mr. Malkan, learned Standing Counsel appearing on the advance copy of this petition being served upon him, waives service of notice of rule for respondents.2. In response to the show cause notice dated 12-9-2003 the petitioner filed reply and the written submissions before the adjudicating authority, who had passed the order in original dated 31-3-2004 (issued on 30-4-2004) whereby he confirmed duty demand of Rs. 14,11,387/- (Annexure-A), the said order was received by the petitioner company on 2-6-2004. On receiving the same, within a period of limitation, the petitioner company filed appeal with stay applications before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 26-7-2004 (Annexure-B). The same are pending even today without any further orders passed on it because the officer concerned, who is in-charge of the Commissioner (Appeals), Rajkot has been transferred somewhere in June, 2004 and since then the office is lying vacant as new incumbent has not taken charge of the o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »