Gujarat Court November 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.
Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
Reported in: 2005(100)ECC533
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner No. 1, namely, HDFC Bank Limited has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interalia, challenging the action of the respondent authorities under the Customs Act, 1962 in wrongfully and illegally calling upon the petitioner No. 1 to make payment under four Bank Guarantees which have been issued by the petitioner No. 1 and in wrongfully issuing a detention notice and a public notice against the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 1 refusing to make payment as wrongfully required by the respondents.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under :-2.1 At the request of the respondent No. 6, namely, Core Healthcare Limited, the petitioner No. 1 had issued four Bank Guarantees in favour of the President of India through the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad to guarantee payment of amounts to the respondents in the event of respondent No. 6 failing to abide by the terms and conditions of the releva...
Blue Star Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Labour
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-04-2004
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR731]
D.H. Waghela, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, an employer-company, has prayed to quash the order dated 31.3.1995 of the Commissioner of Labour, the respondent No. 1, whereby, 21 contract labours are found and held to be doing the same work as done by the permanent workmen of the petitioner. The occasion to render such decision had arisen on account of the disagreement with regard to the type of work performed by the workmen employed through contractor in the establishment of the petitioner.2. The brief factual background, as far as it is relevant for the purpose of deciding the main issue, is that the petitioner engaged contract labour and, upon grievances being voiced by the trade union of contract labour, an enquiry into dissimilar conditions of service was ordered to be completed preferably before the end of December, 1994 by order of this Court dated 20.10.1994 in SCA No. 9311 of 1994. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Labour com...
Gasfulbhai Mohmadbhai Bilakhia Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-04-2004
Reported in: (2005)1GLR575
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the Circular dated 27.05.1992 issued by Section Officer, Revenue Department, State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar and consequentially praying for direction to the State officials to certify mutation Entry No. 5100 in respect of the lands in question effected in favour of the petitioner.2. The petition was admitted on 18.10.1994 and interim relief was granted in terms of para 11 (B) whereby the execution, operation and implementation of the impugned Circular was stayed by this Court.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and one Smt. Bhuriben Nagarji Desai had family relations and had mutual love and affection for each other's families. On account of such relations between the two families, the said Smt. Bhuriben Nagarji Desai had decided to include the name of the petitioner in the will executed by her on 18.05.1992. By the said will, the...
Jignishaben Jasavant Sinh Parmar Vs. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Institut ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-04-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Guj159
M.R. Shah, J.1. Rule. Shri Dhaval Dave, Learned Advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - student has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order directing the respondents to return her original marksheet of Std. XII issued by the Gujarat Higher Secondary Education Board, Gandhinagar which was deposited by the petitioner while submitting the application for getting admission in Electrical Engineering Course conducted by the respondent institution and for getting admission in the said course.3. The petitioner had applied for getting admission in Electrical Engineering Course conducted by the respondent No. 1 institution on 5.10.2001. That alongwith the application, the petitioner had paid Rs. 5000/towards Advance Deposit and also deposited her original marksheet of Std. XII issued by the Board. Th...
Hamburg Bulk Carriers Gmbh Foreign Company Vs. Vishal Exports Overseas ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-03-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR394(Gujarat); (2005)2GLR954
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. Rule. Mr. Sunit Shah waives service of rule for the respondents.1.1 In this petition the petitioner has challenged the judgement and order dated 16th April 2004 passed by the Judge, Court No. 19, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, ('trial court' for short) below Exh. 9 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 628 of 2002 by which the trial court has dismissed the preliminary objection of the petitioner to the effect that the trial court is not the Court as defined and understood under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and consequently, the trial court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the Civil Misc. Application.2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present petition it is necessary to note the relevant facts which are as under:2.1 The petitioner company is carrying on business as ship owners/ship operations and the respondent company is engaged mainly in the business of export of fo...
Vikshara Trading and Investment Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: 2005(182)ELT147(Guj)
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J. 1. Learned Counsel Shri Rao, after arguing the matter for a considerable time, sought permission of this Court to withdraw this petition as he wants to approach the Tribunal by way of modification application pointing out to the Tribunal that though it was argued before the learned Tribunal that the copy of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was received by the petitioner on 3-12-2002 and the affidavit was also filed to that effect and that point was specifically argued before the Tribunal itself, the same was not considered by the Tribunal in its impugned order at Annexure 'G' dated 12-12-2003. Learned Standing Counsel Shri Malkan has no objection. Permission granted. Dismissed as withdrawn.2. At this stage, a request is made by Mr. Rao to direct the learned Tribunal to decide his modification application on merits by condoning the delay as, according to him, delay is caused in filing such modification application be-cause of the pendency of ...
B.M. Rao Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)1GLR481
J.N. Bhatt, J.PREFATORY PROFILE OF THE AVOIDABLE LEGAL BATTLE:1. In this group of four petitions, pertaining to the Service Jurisprudence, by a common petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the legality and authority of the initiation of Departmental Inquiries and for quashing, the departmental penalty in one inquiry, three aspects: (i) Incumbency of the disciplinary jurisdiction in the matter of discipline against Civil Services; versus Expediency of initiation of inquiries; (ii) Amplitude and altitude of the zone of disciplinary punishment; and, (iii) Resultant ramifications, on the administrative mechanism, as well as, on the independence and equal right of Civil Servants, are, sharply, brought into focus, mainly on the grounds of bias, unfairness, mala fide, victimization and colourable exercise of power with a view to project favoured person, junior to petitioner preventing him from the Zone of Consideration by imposing token minor punishment adoptin...
Rajendrasinh Jaidevsinh Dabhi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1690; (2005)2GLR1491
C.K. Buch, J.1. Rule. Service of Rule is waived by ld. APP Mr. SS Patel for respondent No. 1 State and service of Rule is waived by ld. counsel Mr. MJ Buddhbhatti for respondent No. 2- original complainant. With consent, Rule is fixed forthwith.2. Heard ld. counsel Mr. Tirmizi for ld. counsel Mr. Pritish Parikh for the petitioner. The Court is aware that the case is instituted on a police report and, therefore, the original complainant practically has no say. However, in the interest of justice, say of ld. counsel Mr. MJ Buddhbhatti for the respondent No. 2 -original complainant is considered.3. The petitioner has approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC as well as under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The grievance of the petitioner is that request of the ld. counsel appearing for the defence side made before the Presiding Judge to recall some of the witnesses for a limited purpose has been wrongly rejected and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›