Gujarat Court August 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.
Bipinchandra Gamanlal Chokshi Vs. Competent Authority Under Safema
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: (2005)1GLR458
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. By filing this petition, the petitioners have prayed that, since the order of detention passed against Mr.Bipinchandra Gamanlal Chokshi, petitioner No.1, under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ('COFEPOSA', for short) is revoked by the Government on lifting of Emergency, the Act in question, being the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 ('SAFEMA', for short), is not applicable to any of the petitioners and, therefore, the notices dated 23.8.2001, at Annexure 'O' Collectively, issued under Section 6 of SAFEMA are bad and illegal, and void ab initio, and the said notices may be quashed and set aside. It is also prayed that the notices issued under Section 6, at Annexure 'O' Collectively to the petition, are without jurisdiction and the same are issued in a mala fide manner. It is also prayed in the petition, that the detention order dated 11.6.1976, at Annexure 'H' to the pe...
Kandla Port Trust Vs. Pushpa Bhairyani
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-2004
Reported in: (2004)3GLR2681
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. A common question of law is raised in all the above petitions and therefore they are considered together. In the above petitions the petitioner Kandla Port Trust has challenged the legality and validity of the common judgement and order of the Tribunal dated 30th August 1993 in so far as it directed the petitioner Trust to treat the respondents-employees as regular teachers from the date of initial appointment and further directing the petitioner Trust to fix their salary by giving notional increments and to pay consequential benefits flowing therefrom from 22.5.1986 (i.e. the date of constitution of the Tribunal).2. The respondents-teachers (hereinafter referred to as the Teachers) were originally appointed as ad-hoc teachers by the petitioner Port Trust and their services were regularised on the basis of a settlement with effect from 10th September 1980. The Teachers therefore approached Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal by filing Applications No.122 to 130 and 15...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Hareshbhai Tulsibhai Kanjiya
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-2004
Reported in: III(2005)ACC417; 2005ACJ1262; (2005)1GLR392
D.N. Patel, J.1. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing today.2. The present petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22-7-2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Surendranagar passed below the application exh. 22 filed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.425 of 1998, for getting interim compensation.3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surendranagar below the application for interim application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is absolutely dehors to the power, jurisdiction and authority. It is also contended that whenever there is a vehicular accident between the motor-vehicle/s and train carrying the passengers, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under the the Mo...
industeel Industries Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: [2006]146STC117(Guj)
ORDERM.S. Shah, J.1. What is challenged in this petition under article 226 of the Constitution is the communication dated December 23, 2002 (annexure 'K') from the Assistant Industries Commissioner (Incentives) conveying the decision of the State Level Committee rejecting the petitioner's claim for sales tax incentives under the New I Incentive Policy--Capital Investment Incentive (General) Scheme, 1995-2000 which is at annexure 'A' to the petition.2. The petitioner set up an oxygen gas plant in Village Mamsa in Bhavnagar District which area is covered by the aforesaid scheme. The scheme came into operation from August 16, 1995 and remained in force up to August 15, 2000. There is no dispute about the fact that the plant was set up during the operation period of the scheme and the commercial production commenced on January 20, 1999. There is also no dispute about the petitioner's case that it is an eligible unit under the scheme. The petitioner had claimed the incentives under the sche...
Laxminarayan Education and Welfare Trust Vs. Dist. Education Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Guj196
Jayant Patel, J.1. The facts in all these petitions are common and there are common questions, and they are, therefore, dealt with by this common judgment.2. The petitioners have preferred these petitions against the respondents for quashing and setting aside the order dated 20th October 2003 passed by the District Education Officer, Surat, whereby the payment of the grant is withheld.3. Heard Mr. Shah for the petitioners and Mr. A.D. Oza, learned Government Pleader with Mr. H.D. Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.4. Short facts of the case are that it is the case of the petitioners that in response to the advertisement by the Gujarat Secondary Education Board, applications were made by the petitioners for grant of permission to open school of different standards. It appears that thereafter, the Gujarat Secondary Education Board ultimately granted permission to the petitioners, except in case of Spl. C.A. No. 17423 of 2003 filed by Shri Laxminarayan Educatio...
Yashwant Venilal Sanghvi Vs. Sahdevsinh Dilubha Zala
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: (2006)3GLR1873
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. In this batch of 11 petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners against whom First Information Reports have been registered at various police stations of different Districts of State of Gujarat, details of which are shown below in this judgment, for alleged commission of offences mainly under Sections 295-A, 505(c), 120B and 114 of IPC, seek to challenge the registration of the said FIRs and have prayed to quash and set aside the said FIRs as also the investigation pursuant thereto, by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent No.3, State of Gujarat and its subordinate officers.2. Common questions of law and facts are involved in this batch of petitions and FIRs which are sought to be quashed are filed for alleged commission of similar offences in all the FIRs by disciples of Swadhyaya Group headed by late Shri Pandurang Shastri Athavle. Further, the petitioners are almost common in all the petitions and, therefore, with the co...
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Hansraj M. Chudasama
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR488]; (2004)3GLR2620
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The impugned award of the Labour Court -- being Reference (LCR) No.1680 of 1989, corresponding to new Reference (LCJ) No.1424 of 1990 recorded on 10th January, 1992, whereby, the dismissal order from the service against the respondent-Conductor, Hansraj Manji Chudasama, passed by the petitioner, being Disciplinary Authority, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation ('GSRTC', for short) after holding departmental inquiry on the ground of misappropriation of public money in not issuing tickets to 21 passengers after collecting the amount of fare from all and upon being raided, was caught red-handed, and despite he, having cases of six misconducts in the past, out of which, two culminated into dismissal orders, but respondent-workman came to be reinstated by the orders of the Court -- is legal, valid and sustainable or not, is the main issue in focus in this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, at the instance of the employer-Corporation.2. The Labour...
State of Gujarat Vs. Devabhai Tapubhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)3GLR554
K.S. Jhaveri, J.Thoough the matter was called out in the third round Ms. Shah was not present. Hence, the matter is taken up for hearing in his absence.1. The petitioner State of Gujarat has challenged the judgment and order dated 20th May, 1993 passed by the Presiding Officer, Surendranagar in Recovery Application No. 135 of 1992, whereby the Labour Court has granted benefit of Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988.2. The short facts as they emerge from the record of this petition are that the respondent-workman was engaged as casual worker by the petitioner State for project work known as Implementation of Social Forestry Scheme. It is the say of the petitioner State that the said Scheme was for a fixed period and it was extended and sanctioned by the World Bank from time to time. It is further the say of the petitioner State that since the financial assistance for the maintenance of the said project was not given, the service of the respondent was discontinued.2.1. In view ...
Dilip Sagar Vs. Deputy General Manager
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)3GLR573; (2005)ILLJ318Guj
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.9.1997 passed by the Disciplinary Authority-Deputy General Manager, and also the order of appellate authority dated 6.12.1997 passed by the General Manager confirming the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority.2. The petitioner was serving as a Clerk in Syndicate Bank, Vina Branch, Nadiad. He was originally appointed as Peon on 21.10.75 in Syndicate Bank, Paldi Branch. Thereafter he had appeared in the examination for the post of Clerk in which he had succeeded. In pursuance of the same he was appointed as a clerk on 21.2.1984 in Dasaj Branch. Thereafter he was transferred to Ashram Road branch of the respondent Bank on 10.6.1989.2.1 The petitioner has been maintaining his SB Accounts being (i) A-29 and (ii) 8264 at the Ashram Road Branch of the respondent Bank. During the period between 19.2.1994 and 21.2.1994 the petitioner caused crediting of Rs.31,818 to his said accounts a sum of ...
Board Opinion Vs. Nanikram Sobhraj Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-12-2004
Reported in: [2005]59SCL403(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. Since all these petitions and application are in relation to the same Company, namely, Nanikram Sobhraj Mills Limited and since the prayer in all these Company Petitions is for winding up of the respondent Company and the prayer in Company Application is for sanction of the revival scheme of the respondent Company, all these matters are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. Company Petition No. 2 of 1998 is registered on the strength of the opinion of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as BIFR for short) received by this Court from the Registrar of BIFR dated 31.12.1997 along with the opinion of the BIFR of even date. The order passed by the BIFR dated 31.12.1997 was carried further in Appeal by the Mills Company as well as by the President of Kamdar Ladat Samiti of the respondent Company being Appeal Nos. 28 of 1998 and 68 of 1998 respectively. Both these appeals were disposed of by the Appellate Authority for...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »