Gujarat Court April 2005 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.
Bhavnagar District Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1412
D.A. Mehta, J.1. It is necessary to take note of the fact that Special Civil Application Nos.11935 of 2003, 1188 of 2004 and 1234 of 2004 had been originally circulated before the learned Single Judge as per roster. However, by an order dated 20th October, 2004 made by the Court, all the petitions have been clubbed together and directed to be heard together and that is how this Court has taken up all the petitions for hearing together.2. Taking into consideration the nature of disputes between the parties and the subject matter of controversy, namely, a ship named 'M.V. PALANGA' (hereinafter referred to as 'vessel' or 'goods') and its ownership and rights of respective parties averred qua the said property, the matters have been heard at length and finally with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties. Hence, RULE (except in Special Civil Application No.1188 of 2004 and 1234 of 2004). The learned advocates for the respective respondents waive service of rule.SPEC...
Modi Vasudev Punamchand Vs. District Judge and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1773
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The Writ Petitioner, in this Writ Petition, has been seeking mandamus or any other appropriate direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order, dated 16th March, 2003, recorded by the learned District Judge, Mehsana, whereby, the prayer is for staying, the on going Departmental Inquiry, in Departmental Inquiry No. 7 of 2002, against the petitioner, pending the Criminal Trial for the alleged offences punishable under Section 7, read with Sections 13(i)(A) and 13(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the premise that he is likely to be prejudiced if both the proceedings continue simultaneously.2. Mr. P.K. Jani, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has, placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in 'State Bank of India And Ors. v. R.B. Sharma, AIR 2004 SC 4144' in support of the sole contention, which is the main basis of the writ petition, and submitted that the continuance of Departmental Proceedings are likely to ...
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kantibhai N. Parmar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: (2005)3GLR2669
Sharad D. Dave, J.1. The petitioner - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as GSRTC for short) has filed this petition challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and award dated 15.03.2002 passed by the President of the Labour Court, Palanpur in Reference (LCP) No. 93 of 1998 directing the petitioner herein to reinstate the respondent without back wages but with continuity of services. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are such that the respondent herein was working as a conductor with the petitioner - Corporation since many years. On 15.12.1994, he had not issued tickets to four passengers even if he had collected fare of total Rs.14/- from them. Statements to this effect of the passengers and conductor were recorded and as the conductor had signed the said statement, charge sheet was issued. After departmental inquiry, the respondent was dismissed from his services by an order dated 28.10.1995. Against this order of dismissal, the...
Sureshbhai Jayantilal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: (2005)3GLR1918
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Today the Court has dismissed the Revision Application filed by the petitioner-orig.accused No. 4. The matter was heard earlier and today the Court has pronounced the C.A.V. Judgment. For these much of period, the trial has not taken place because of the intervention of the Court and pendency of the present Revision Application. It is submitted by Mr. Mangukiya that this Court at least should issue direction to the trial Court not to proceed with the trial as the petitioner-revisioner intends to approach the Apex Court.2. There is a strong resistance from the respondent-State and it is submitted that once the Revision Application is dismissed, this Court should not stay the trial and there is no good reason for this Court to stay the present C.A.V. Judgment.3. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case emerging from record and the fact that the trial has not commenced on intervention of this Court an...
Jagjivan Mulchand Chokshi Vs. Manilal Mohanlal Soni, Since Decd. Throu ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Guj293
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. Instant appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the Code' for short) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.12.1997 rendered in Regular Civil Appeal No.35 of 1997 by the learned Joint District Judge, Banaskantha District at Palanpur by which the appeal filed by deceased respondent who is represented through his heirs and legal representatives in this appeal came to be allowed and thereby the judgment and final decree dated 2.5.1997 recorded in Regular Civil Suit No.191 of 1966 by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.)., Palanpur decreeing the suit filed by the appellant for an amount of Rs.1,04,838.75 Ps. together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till its realization on the basis of the Commissioner's report at Ex.124 came to be quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded to the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.)., Palanpur to decide it afresh after hearing both the parties and after considering the ob...
Darabsha Sorabji Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1409
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Additional Mamlatdar & ALT (Ceiling), Bardoli, by his order dated 12.5.1986, passed in Ceiling Case No. 23/76, held that the petitioner was not having excess land. Therefore, in exercise of his powers Under Section 20(2) of the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act'), he ordered to withdrew the Notice issued to the petitioner. However, the Government was not satisfied with the said order, therefore, decided to take the matter in suo-motu revision Under Section 37 of the Act, under which the Collector is empowered to take up the matter in its suo-motu powers. Accordingly, Notice dated 6.4.1987 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to remain personally present on 24.4.1987 at Bardoli. After hearing the petitioner the learned Dy. Collector, by his order dated 4.5.1987 (Annexure : B) set aside the order dated 12.5.1986 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT and remanded the case to him for his fresh decision, in accordance with law. However, once...
Narottam Narandas Patel Vs. A.B. Gor or His Successor in Office
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1583
R.S. Garg, J.1. The petitioners in all 8 in number, who are members of Visalvasna Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd., (the affiliated society of the respondent no.3), are before this Court with a grievance that the respondent no.1 at the behest of some others had rejected their nomination papers when the present petitioners in their capacity as representatives of their own society wanted to contest the elections of the respondent no. 3 - Patan Taluka Sahkari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. It is to be seen that the Election Officer rejected the nominations of the present petitioners observing that on a juxtapose reading of Rule 23(2) and Rule 18 (1), so also Rule 19(1) and the Election Byelaw 8(5) of the respondent no.3, the nominations were liable to be rejected.2. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are; (i) that at the behest of some political parties, the respondent no.1 rejected all the nominations papers, (ii) the respondent no.1 removed the resolutions which were attached to ...
Rpg Life Sciences Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(187)ELT433(Guj); [2006]144STC267(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges Tribunal's final order dated 12th September, 1996 and miscellaneous order dated 30th September,2004. Heard Mr. Paresh M. Dave, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Malkan appearing on behalf of the respondents. In light of the view that the Court proposes to take up the matter, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal today. Rule. Mr. Malkan waives service of Rule.2. The petitioner, a Limited Company, is carrying on business of manufacture of medicines. The dispute between the parties relates to levy of duty on physicians' samples of patent or proprietary medicines manufactured by the petitioner. It is not necessary for the purpose of the present petition to enter into any discussion on merits of the said aspect of the matter. 3. It appears that pursuant to different show cause notices the Additional Collector passed an Order-In-Original confirming demand of Rs. 1,96,313/- on ph...
Parsan Brothers Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(102)ECC333; (2005)3GLR2456
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred praying for following reliefs :'(1) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the respondents herein to remit duties on 823 cases of beer under Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962;(2) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, completely and permanently prohibiting the respondents herein from recovering any amounts as duty or interest from the petitioners for 823 cases of beer lying in the petitioners' bonded warehouse;(3) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the respondents, their servants and agents from recovering any amount of duty or interest from the petitioner firm on 823 cases of beer lying in the petitioners' bonded warehouse, by...
Shree Aamra Dudh Utpathak Sahakari Mandali Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-04-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Guj283
R.S. Garg, J.1. The present is a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein, the petitioner Shree Aamra Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali Limited has prayed for the following reliefs:-'[a] That a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order/interim order of liquidation dated 3.9.2003 passed by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure:C), final order of liquidation dated 19.1.2004 passed by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure:G) and the order dated 2.1.2004 passed by the respondent No. 2 in Appeal No. 127 of 2003.[b] To stay and suspend the execution, implementation, operation and enforcement of the interim order of liquidation dated 3.9.2003, final order of liquidation dated 19.1.2004 and the order dated 2.1.2004 (passed in Appeal No. 127 of 2003).[c] To direct the respondent No. 3 not to restrain the petitioner-society from participating at the ensuing election of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Jamnagar,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »