Gujarat Court July 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.
Mahendrabhai Ravjibhai Patel Vs. Ambalal Prabhudas Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ840
C.K. Buch, J.1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the otherside Mr.Saurin Mehta submitted that the Revision Application should be heard on merits and the same should be decided finally.2. Rule. Mr. Sudhir Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2, waives formal service of Rule on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2. The formal service of Rule is also waived by Mr.K.T. Dave, ld. APP, on behalf of the respondent no.3-State. The matter is taken up for final hearing on consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.3. The present Revision Application is preferred by the petitioner-orig. complainant under Section 397 r/w. Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'); and the petitioner has prayed that the record and proceedings of the Criminal Case No.684/1993 tried by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anand, be called for and the order imposing sentence be alter...
Gujarat Cypromet Ltd. Vs. Assistant P.F. Commissioner
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)3GLR529; (2005)ILLJ484Guj
Akil Kureshi, J.1. By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.8.2003 passed by the respondent No.1 in exercise of powers under section 7-A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('the said Act' for short) by which a demand of unpaid provident fund of the employees of the petitioner Company to the tune of Rs.6,62,759/- towards principal and Rs.1,85,186/- towards interest has been raised against the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 15.1.2004 by which the review application filed by the petitioner against the said order dated 11.8.2003 came to be rejected.2. Basic facts which are, more or less, undisputed can be stated at the outset. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in manufacture of copper and copper alloys tubes and rods. The employees of the petitioner Company receive salary which includes certain allowances, such as house rent allowance, co...
P.J. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: (2004)3GLR2758
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1.By way of this petition the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent whereby the respondent nos.4 and 5 are treated to be seniors to the petitioner vide communication dated 9th October 2001 in spite of the fact that the petitioner was senior while they were granted ad hoc promotion on 11th December 1998.2.The petitioner was appointed as a direct recruit Executive Engineer in the Roads & Building Department of Government of Gujarat. Seniority list was published from time to time and the name of the petitioner was placed at the appropriate place. Shri M.B. Bhalala and Shri J.J. Shiyani, respondent nos.4 and 5 herein, who are also direct recruits, were junior to the petitioner and were shown as such in the seniority list.2.1 The petitioner and Shri Bhalala were promoted as Superintending Engineer vide order dated 31.7.1992. Shri Shiyani was promoted as Superintending Engineer on 31.5.1993. Thereafter the said three persons were promoted as Chief Engineer an...
Gujarat State Khadi Gramodyog Board Vs. Gujarat State Khadi Gramodyog ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)1GLR24
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. In this group of Letters Patent Appeals, common questions have been involved arising out of the common judgment and therefore, upon request, the entire group is heard together and is being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In this group of Letters Patent Appeals, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the common question which has come to the surface for our consideration, determination and adjudication, is, as to whether the employees of Gujarat State Khadi Gramodyog Board, are entitled for the payment of pension, according to the revised pay scales, as per the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission Report, as accepted and adopted by the respondents, who have retired prior to 01.1.1996, and if yes, whether the liability of such payment of revised pension is on the part of the Board and/or State of Gujarat, or both ?3. Challenging the action of non-payment of the pensionary benefits, upon the basis of the revised pay scales, pursuant to the acceptance of the 5t...
Purshottamdas Devabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)1GLR470
D.N. Patel, J.1. The present petitioner, by way of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the impugned notification issued by the respondent No. 5 dated 1st March, 2004, pertaining to the elections of Agricultural Produce Market Committee.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No. 5 has issued notification dated 1st March, 2004, whereby, the election of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee has been postponed in the midst of the election process. It is submitted that once election process has been started, as per the settled principle of law initiated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be adjourned or suspended. Therefore, the action of the respondent No. 5 deserves to be quashed and set aside.3. It is also contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that as per Section 11(3) of the said Act, only the Director, Agricultural and Co-operation Department has power to postpone the ele...
Valsad District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Krushnalal Manilal ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)3GLR2190; (2005)ILLJ79Guj
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. The above Special Civil Application No.617/2003 has been filed challenging the order dated 29.10.2002 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and to declare that the respondent is not entitled for interest as awarded. In Special Civil Application No.666/2003 the petitioner has prayed to quash the order dated 22.10.2002 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whereby he confirmed the order passed by the Controlling Authority, Vadodara who directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,30,751/- towards the payment of gratuity with 15% compound interest per annum from the date of receipt of the Order.2. The respondent was working as an Agent in the Pardi Branch of the petitioner Bank. It is alleged that he had committed misappropriation of funds of the bank to the tune of Rs.13,83,000/-. Therefore, on 17.7.1980 the respondent was suspended and he was served with chargesheet pending departmental enquiry. ...
Kilara Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jyoti Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)1GLR538
ORDER VIIPlaintxxx xxx xxx10-A. Power of Court to fix a date of appearance in the Court where plaint is to be filed after its return.-(1) Where, in any suit, after the defendant has appeared, the Court is of opinion that the plaint should be returned, it shall, before doing so, intimate its decision to the plaintiff.(2) Where an intimation is given to the plaintiff under sub-rule (1), the plaintiff may make an application to the Court-(a) specifying the Court in which he proposes to present the plaint after its return,(b) praying that the Court may fix a date for the appearance of the parties in the said Court, and(c) requesting that the notice of the date so fixed may be given to him and to the defendant.(3) Where an application is made by the plaintiff under sub-rule (2), the Court shall, before returning the plaint and notwithstanding that the order for return of plaint was made by it on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit,-(a) fix a date for the appearance of the...
State of Gujarat Vs. Bachubhai Govabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR187]; (2004)3GLR542
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. In this group of petitions, the State of Gujarat has challenged the order dated 12th May, 1997 passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar, in Recovery Applications No.281 of 1993 to 289 of 1993, whereby the Labour Court has directed the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.33,151=00 to each of the respondents.2. The short facts of the case as they emerge from the record are that the respondents were employed as daily wage employees in the Forest Department and all of them have completed minimum service of five years. It is the case of the respondents that, since the work performed by them is a permanent nature of work, they are required to be considered as regular employees and they should be granted all permissible allowances. It is further contended by the respondents that in view of the Circular dated 17th October, 1988, all the employees were granted benefits.2.1. As against that the say of the State Government is that the Government Resolution dated 17th October, ...
N.R. Zala Vs. Bank of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)1GLR226; (2004)IIILLJ942Guj
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.11.2002 passed by the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent Bank, whereby the Disciplinary imposed a penalty of discharge of the petitioner from the services with superannuation benefits i.e. pension and/or provident fund and gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules and Regulations prevalent as on the date and without disqualification from future employment in terms of Clause 6(d) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.4.2002. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 4.3.2003 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby the authority has confirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.2. The petitioner was serving at INS Valsura Branch as Cashier-cum-Accounts Clerk. He was served with a memorandum dated 9th September 2002 informing him that it was decided to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner for the acts of misconduct alleged to have been committed by hi...
Bhanulal Khimjibhai Solanki Vs. Deputy Executive Engineer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ655Guj
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. This application of the workman for being paid wages last drawn as per the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has been referred to the Division Bench pursuant to the order made by the learned Single Judge on 27.4.2004 on this application, because, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the income derived by the applicant from an independent work such as by plying autorickshaw, hawking or vending fruits, vegetables etc., ought to be considered while deciding whether payment of last drawn wages should be ordered during pendency of the proceedings in the High Court. The learned Single Judge expressed his disagreement with the decision of the Court in University Granth Nirman Board v. U.T. Solanki, reported in 2003 (1) G.L.H. 626, in which it was held that, income from such sources of independent engagement would not be considered to be an income from gainful employment of the workman.2. The Labour Court, Junagadh made an award in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »