Gujarat Court September 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.
Ramanlal Keshavlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-10-2004
Reported in: (2005)1GLR357
Jayant Patel, J.1. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving as a clerk with respondent No.4-Society and there was some audit objections in the year 1986. On the basis of the said audit objections, one Mr Mevada was appointed as Inquiry Officer and ultimately he submitted report and in the year 1991, the petitioner was called upon to make the payment based on the report of the Inquiry Officer. It appears that the petitioner submitted the reply. The petitioner also preferred revision application before the Additional Registrar who rejected the revision application but simultaneously directed that the amount in question may be recovered from the petitioner by filing suit before the Registrar's Board of Nominee, Mehsana. The respondent-Society preferred Arbitration Suit No.644/94 before the Registrar's Board of Nominee and ultimately on 4.1.1999, the Board of Nominee dismissed the suit on the ground that after the enquiry under section 86 of the Act, the proper proce...
Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-10-2004
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1704
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner has challenged, in this petition, the impugned order dated 10.08.2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zone Bench, Mumbai (for short 'the Tribunal') passed in application no. E/S/1691/04/Mumbai filed in Appeal No.E/2147/04/Mumbai, whereby the learned Tribunal granted conditional stay in favour of the petitioner against recovery of duty, penalty and interest on the condition that the petitioner may deposit Rs. 1.50 crores towards pre-deposit and report compliance to it by 13.09.2004.2. Learned Counsel Shri Mihir Joshi appearing for Mr. S.N.Thakkar for the petitioner, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mehsana District Cooperative Milk P.U.Ltd. V/s Union of India in 2003(154) ELT 347 (SC), submitted that the learned Tribunal has not at all considered the prima facie case of the petitioner on merits and without assigning any reasons for granting conditional stay in favour of the petitioner...
Baroda Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ramgopal M. Patel and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-09-2004
Reported in: (2005)1GLR153
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. One Shri S.B. Chaudhary, President of Rashtriya Labour Union (Gujarat State) bearing Registration No.G-4742 is present before the Court and files authority letters in both these petitions which are taken on record. At the joint request of the learned advocates and the representativerepresentingthe respondent-Ramgopal M. Patel and others the matters are taken up for final hearing.2. RULE. Shri S.B.Chaudhary, President of Rashtriya Labour Union (Gujarat State) waives service of rule.3. These petitions are filed by two different companies, namely, Baroda Ispat Private Limited and Hy-Tuf Steels Private Limited against an order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vadodara, on an application-objecting to file Vakalatnama in Recovery Applications No.439 of 2004 to 551 of 2004, dated 29th June 2004. The learned Judge was pleased to uphold the objection raised by the workmen, objecting to filing of Vakalatnama by one Shri Mehulsinh Mehta, advocate on behalf of ...
Dineshbhai Harishbhai Sonkusare Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-2004
Reported in: II(2005)DMC79; (2005)1GLR292
J.R. Vora, J.1. This Revision Application is preferred under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the accused of Sessions Case No. 263 of 2002 pending before Learned Principal Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad against an order passed by Learned Principal Judge, City Sessions Court, below exhibit-31 on 20th May, 2004, rejecting an application of present petitioners accused for issuing summons to their defence witnesses.2. A chargesheet against present petitioners was submitted before the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad by Amraiwadi Police Station for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 306 of I.P. Code and under section 4 & 5 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in respect of death of Vaishali, wife of present petitioner no.1. Present petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charges framed by Trial Court. Thereafter, the trial was proceeded and prosecution examined as many as about 10 witnesses, produced documents and closed the evidence. The statements of petit...
Gujarat Rajya Ardh Sakari Audhiyogick Karmachari Sangh Vs. State of Gu ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-2004
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR480]; (2005)1GLR135
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr.P.H. Pathak on behalf of the petitioners and learned AGP Ms.Nandini Joshi appearing on behalf of respondents.2. In these two petitions, the Dailywagers who are working with the Forest Department, have filed these two separate petition claiming benefits of Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 and benefit of equality on the basis of equal pay for equal work. So far as the first petition Special Civil Application No.7923 of 1996 is concerned, this Court [ Coram : Justice J. N. Bhatt, J. ] has at the time of admitting this matter, on 16.10.96 issued Rule and granted ad-interim relief restrained the respondents from terminating the services of the petitioners named as at Annexure-C with a clarification that it will be open for the respondents to terminate their services in accordance with law. It is further ordered that the petitioners named in Annexure-C shall be paid wages calculated or determined at the minimum of the pay scale applic...
State of Gujarat Vs. Jitendra M. Raval
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-06-2004
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR97]; (2005)1GLR594
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard Ms.Nandini Joshi, learned AGP on behalf of the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.B.D.Kariya for respondent workman.2. In the present petition, the petitioner State of Gujarat has challenged the award passed by the labour court, Rajkot in Reference No.639 / 1993 dated 25th August, 1995, whereby the labour court has set side the termination order and granted reinstatement with continuity of service and 70 % backwages with effect from 19th December 1993.3. Ms.Joshi, learned AGP has raised contentions that the respondent had not remained in service for a period of twelve months continuously and therefore, he is not entitled to benefit of Section 25-F of the I.D.Act, 1947. She also submitted that termination of workman was in the year 1987 but he raised the industrial dispute in the year 1991 and therefore there was delay of four years and hence, the labour court has committed gross error in granting relief in favour of the respondent workman. She further submitted ...
N.C. NavIn Vs. General Manager Bank of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-06-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ969Guj
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1.0 By way of this petition the petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal from service dated 5.9.2001 and to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including backwages with 12% interest. The petitioner has also challenged the appellate order dated 17th April 2002 and the order dated 28th March 2003 passed in the Review Application.2.0 The petitioner was serving as Chief Officer, Corporate Service Department, Bank of India.A chargesheet date 7th June 2000 was served to the petitioner for holding a departmental inquiry in respect of four charges. One Shri Raj Bahadur, Deputy Chief Regional Manager was appointed to hold the departmental inquiry against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer, after holding the inquiry, submitted his report dated 28.9.2000 and held that all the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved.2.1 The Chief Regional Manager, after getting the inquiry report by letter dated 9.11.2000 called the petitioner to ...
M.S. Raghunathan Vs. Rajesh Shah and Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-03-2004
Reported in: I(2006)BC349; 2005CriLJ2077; (2005)2GLR1750
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. By means of filing instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short), the petitioner against whom Criminal Case bearing No.324 of 2001 is filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara for alleged commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 ('the Act' for short) in which process has been issued, has prayed to quash and set aside the complaint and the process issued thereunder, on the grounds stated in the petition.2. The petitioner is the original accused No.7 whereas respondent No.1, a Proprietary Concern, is the original complainant in the above referred to Criminal Case. Therefore, for the sake of convenience and brevity, the petitioner is referred to as 'accused No.7' whereas respondent No.1 is referred to as 'the complainant' hereinafter in this judgment. 3. As per the averments made in the complaint bearing Criminal Case No.324 of 2001 filed in the Court of learned ...
Ramakant Gopalsharan Shahu Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-03-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1131; (2005)2GLR1046
R.P. Dholakia, J.1. The present appellant has been convicted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharuch and 4th Fast Track Judge, Rajpipla, in Special NDPS Case No.4 of 2002 vide judgment and order dated 31-12-2003 for the offence under Sec. 8(c) which is punishable under the provisions of Sec. 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (`NDPS Act' for short) to undergo R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default, to undergo further R.I. for five years. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, this appeal has been preferred through Central Jail, Vadodara.2. When the appeal has come up for hearing, r. U.S. Brahmbhatt, who has been appointed as the counsel to appear on behalf of the appellant, has stated at the bar that he would restrict his arguments only on the point of sentence and, therefore, at the time of admission, the appeal was ordered to be placed on the final hearing board today.3. The short facts are that Shri H.K. Rathod, P.I. of Rajpipla Police...
Kamleshbhai B. Mehta Vs. Registrar, High Court of Guj.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-03-2004
Reported in: (2004)3GLR2290
ORDER BELOW COMPLAINT.Heard Mr.V.K.Vaghela, L.A. for the applicant i.e. original complainant.On inquiry as well as on perusal of the original complaint, it appears that the complainant prayed for muddamal. The said application was referred to Police Sub Inspector, who in turn submitted his report stating that department was not in any further need of muddamal. Hence, an order under section 457 Cr.P.C. was passed for delivery of the same to the present complainant on furnishing bail for the amount mentioned thereunder. Thereafter, the complainant proceeded to accused and concerned officers with the order of this court after getting the delivery of muddamal. I have carefully studied, the reports of the officers. Considering these reports as well as the whole proceedings of the case, it is crystal clear that all these officers accused have deliberately and intentionally disobeyed the order of this Court under various pretexts. This is flagrant violation of clear order of this Court. Every...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »