Gujarat Court April 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.
Dashrathbhai Manabhai Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
Reported in: (2005)1GLR665
M.R. Shah, J.1. Instant appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code' for short) against judgment dated March 24, 2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Camp at Anand, in Sessions Case No.181 of 1999, by which the appellant is convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 363, & 376 r.w.sec.511 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short) and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, S.I. for six months.2. In view of decision in the case of State of Punjab v. Ram Dev, 2003 A.I.R. SCW 6947, we do not propose to mention name of the victim.The age of the victim on the date of incident was 5 years. The parents of the victim are residing at village Kunjrav, Taluka : Anand. The name of her father is Dineshbhai Rameshbhai Patel. The victim has one brother. On 30th May, 1998, the victim was playing with her brother and friends Jigisha and Sagar near Ramji Mandir. At that time, accused by enticing/i...
Navinchandra Nathalal Doshi Vs. Jagdishbhai Shankerlal Modi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)2GLR1714
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. This is a revision application filed by the original defendant of HRP Suit No.2658 of 1991. The respondents herein are the original plaintiffs of the aforesaid suit.2. The petitioner-tenant was given on rent the premises, which is a bungalow, situated in Navrangpura area in the City of Ahmedabad, known as 'Chandramouli Bungalow'. The said premises is consisting of four blocks, out of which the defendant was given on rent one block, situated on the first floor, on western side, which is bearing Survey No.377/3/4. The plaintiff instituted the said suit for getting a decree for possession as provided by the Rent Act on the ground that the defendant is in arrears of rent as well as on the ground that after taking the rented premises, subsequently, the tenant has acquired suitable alternative accommodation and that, on that ground, he is required to be evicted from the suit premises.3. The defendant denied the said suit by filing Written Statement, Exhibit 15. He denied ...
Tamilnadu Newspring and Papers Ltd. Vs. Adani Exports Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Guj259; I(2005)BC540; (2004)2GLR1674
K.A. Puj, J. 1. This Appeal From Order is filed against an order of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad below an application Exh.5 in Civil Suit No. 1076 of 2004 on 08.04.2004 whereby the Trial Court has granted ad-interim injunction in terms of para 7 (a) & (b) of the application till 16.04.2004. The Trial Court has observed that Exh.3/7 shows that the default is by the defendant No. 3 and it does not speak about plaintiff. It is further observed that the bank guarantee is given by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 and hence, the bank can not honour the guarantee. The Trial Court has also observed that if injunction is not granted, it will defeat purpose of the suit and hence, the order regarding ad-interim injunction was passed.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present Appeal From Order are that the appellant - original defendant No. 1 had entered into a Contract bearing No. MM/SS/IMP/25216/0/2003 dated 24.12.2003 with M/s. Adani Gl...
Jagdishchandra Maganlal Trivedi Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ1092Guj
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Yatin Oza with Mr. Sunil K. Shah for the appellant and Mr. Pranav G. Desai, learned advocate for the respondent. In this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has challenged the oral judgment dated July 8, 1997 delivered by the learned Single Judge (Coram : S.K. Keshote, J.) in Special Civil Application NO. 4121 of 1984. Brief facts are as under:Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?2. Initially, the respondent bank called explanation from the appellant by letter dated November 24, 1978 in respect of the alleged incident. The appellant JAGDISHCHANDRA MAGANLAL TRIVEDI had received charge sheet dated January 24, 1981 when he was working as Branch Manager in State Bank of India, Borsad Branch. Alleged incident is dated October 7, 1978. In charge sheet, following charges were levelled against the appellant :'(a) A shortage of cash amounting to Rs.55,000.00 in the currency chest balance at the branch and its repl...
Malpati Sevasangh Vs. Gujarat State Khadi and Village Industries Board
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ARBLR521(Gujarat); (2004)2GLR1728; [2004]53SCL288(Guj)
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Whether the Court is bound to accept the award of the arbitrators in a pending suit, in which the parties, inter se, outside the court independently and without the aid of the court, decided to refer the dispute to arbitrators and what is the effect of such award if one of the parties is not willing to accept the same as a compromise under Rule 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is the question which is required to be decided by this Court in the present revision application.2. Respondent No. 1, Gujarat State Khadi & Village Industries Board, is the original plaintiff of Summary Civil Suit No. 191 of 1983, which is pending in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. The said suit is filed for recovery of certain amount and the present applicants are defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the said suit. The said suit has been filed by the plaintiff to recover Rs. 2,78,54,408.47 Ps., along with the interest thereon. In this revision, we are not concerned with the merits of the af...
Cama Hotels Ltd. and anr. Vs. Airports Authority of India and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Guj349; IV(2004)BC576
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Rule. Service of notice of rule is waived by Mr. S. V. Raju, learned Advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr. R. C. Jani, learned Advocate for the respondent No.2.2. By this petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Cama Hotels, has assailed the decision of the respondent No.1 authority, namely, Airports Authority of India, ('Authority', for short) - whereby all tenders came to be rejected by obtaining the tender process initiated upon issuance of the tender-notice No.02/03 published inter alia in a letter dated 09-09-2003 - with a further prayer of directing respondent No.1-authority to process the same in accordance with law on the premises that it is unjust, unreasonable and is an exercise to favour the respondent No.2-Company.3. A skeleton of facts material and relevant for the purpose may be highlighted at this juncture. Respondent No.1-Authority published a tender-notice inviting bids in the prescribed form for the purpose of grantin...
Mehta Prafullaben Dalpatrai Vs. NitIn A. Mehta and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ490Guj
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner-teacher being aggrieved of the order dated 15th March, 2002 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act in Gratuity Appeal No.92 of 2001 whereby the Appellate Authority has quashed the order dated 2nd February, 2001 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act in Application No.17 of 1999 whereby the Controlling Authority had ordered to pay a sum of Rs.69,265=00 to the petitioner towards gratuity.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner had approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act by way of Application No.17 of 1999 wherein the respondent no.1-Management had raised a preliminary contention that the Controlling Authority has no jurisdiction to try the application. The Controlling Authority, after hearing the parties, was pleased to pass an order dated 23rd December, 1999, holding that the applicant, petitioner herein, had retired on 31st ...
Texplast Engineers Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-13-2004
Reported in: 2005(182)ELT150(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J. 1. Rule. Ms. Dharmishta Raval, learned senior standing Counsel for the Central Government waives service of Rule for the respondents.2. What is challenged in this petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution is the Order dated 28-11-2003 (Annexure 'B') passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in Stay Application Nos. 1066 to 1068 of 2003 in Appeal Nos. 1665 to 1667 of 2003 requiring the petitioners to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 2.5 lakhs for hearing of the appeals.3. The order is challenged mainly on the ground that the petitioner-Company is registered as a sick industrial company under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('the SICA' for short) and that, therefore, no coercive action can be taken against the petitioners for recovery of the arrears of excise duty in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the SICA.4. Mr. Paresh M. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the impugned dem...
Gujarat Forest Producers, Gatherers and Forest Workers Union Vs. State ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)2GLR568; (2004)IIILLJ259Guj
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. These four petitions raising the following questions referred by two learned Single Judges are listed before us alongwith other cognate matters which are tagged with them.Questions Referred:2. In Special Civil Applications No.4715 of 2003 and 4435 of 2001, the learned Single Judge, (H.K. Rathod, J.), by his order dated 4-12-2003, formulated six questions for referring them to the Larger Bench in the following terms;'(1) Whether the Forest Department and the Irrigation Department of the State can be said to be an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not ?(2) What is the correct law between the two different views/ratios laid down by two different Division Bench of this Court in case of PWD EMPLOYEES UNION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, 1987[2] GLR 1070 wherein the Irrigation Department of the State is held to be an industry for the purpose of I.D. Act and decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of SHANKERJI CHELAJI T...
Bharat Overseas Bank Limited Vs. Ashima Limited
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)2GLR529; [2004]54SCL292(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J. 1. This Appeal From Order is filed against the order passed by the learned City Civil Judge below an application Exh.6-7 in Civil Suit No. 854 of 2003 on 22.04.2003 whereby the notice of motion application taken out by the present respondent - original plaintiff was allowed and the appellant was restrained from the recovery of the debts of the respondent, by way of temporary injunction and further restrained from enforcing any security or use any negotiable instruments including four post dated cheques aggregating to Rs. 449.52 lacs drawn on HDFC Bank, Ahmedabad and lying to the custody of the appellant, on the ground that the respondent was protected under the BRU notification dated 11.11.2002 issued by the State Government, Labour and Employment Department in favour of the respondent under the Bombay Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 till the said notification remained in force i.e. upto 11.11.2003. The said period was further extended by one year i.e. up...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »