Gujarat Court November 2006 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.
Oskar I. Rathod Vs. Minaxi Florence Semual Parmar and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-09-2006
Reported in: (2007)1GLR876
R.S. Garg, J.1. Though the matter is listed for consideration of Civil Application No. 12499 of 2006, but with the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.2. The appeal had been admitted for hearing on 7/3/2006 on the following substantial questions of law;i. Whether the order dated 21.1.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Gandhinagar in Regular Appeal No. 24 of 2005 is without jurisdiction?ii. Whether the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Gandhinagar has committed a substantial error of law by entertaining the said appeal?3. Short facts leading to the present appeal are that the present respondent made an application under Section 264 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate in the Court of learned Civil Judge (SD), which was registered as Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 22 of 2000, the application was contested by the present appellant and was dismissed on 6/5/2005. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and or...
Shakti Education Trust Vs. Government of Gujarat and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-09-2006
Reported in: (2007)1GLR902
M.R. Shah, J.1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Shakti Education Trust, who is running a secondary school namely Shakti Vidhyalaya, Chandlodiya, Ahmedabad has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and/or order quashing and setting aside the order passed by the District Education Officer, Ahmedabad Rural dated 8-5-1996 in not granting approval to dismiss the respondent No. 3 from service. 2. Respondent No. 3 was serving as a Teacher in the school run by the petitioner trust namely Shakti Vidhyalaya, Chandlodiya, Ahmedabad. She was charge sheeted by show cause notice dated 8-9-1995. Having not submitted any reply to the said show cause notice, Inquiry Committee was appointed on 24-9-1995 as required under Section 36(1) of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act (for short 'the Act'). Inquiry Committee submitted its report on 9-1-1996 holding all the charges proved against the respondent No. 3 and decided to dismiss the respondent No....
Poladi Yakubkhan @ Nini Rahmetkhan Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-08-2006
Reported in: (2007)2GLR1211
A.M. Kapadia1. These two Criminal Appeals under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short) are directed against the judgment and order dated 25.11.2002 rendered in Sessions Case No. 420 of 2002 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Patan, by which the appellants ('accused' for short) of both these appeals have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 376(2)(g) and 395 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 4 years and fine of Rs. 500/- i.d., S.I. for three months for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 365 IPC, R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.d., S.I. for six months for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) and R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.d., S.I. for six months for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC. It is also ordered that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.2. T...
Raysing Hurji Bhil and ors. Vs. Vaniben Manjibhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-06-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Guj69; (2007)1GLR562
R.S. Garg, J.1. The parties are heard.2. The appeal has been admitted for hearing the parties on the following substantial questions of law:1. In view of the fact that there is no mortgage deed, whether the learned Judge has erred in holding that the suit land was orally mortgaged to the defendants?2) In view of the fact that the defendants have not produced sale deed alleged to have been executed on 24-1-1963 and 7-10-66, whether the learned Judge has erred in holding that the defendants had purchased the suit land from the plaintiff and Bhavsingh Hurji?3) In view of the fact that the defendants have not produced sale deed in order to prove their ownership over the suit land and that the defendants have not given any explanation for producing the sale deed, whether the learned Judge has erred in holding that the defendants are the owners of the suit land and the suit is time barred?3. The appellants-plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration and possession of certain land on the ba...
Harsukh Vallabhdas Raja Vs. Collector of Junagadh and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-06-2006
Reported in: (2007)1GLR190
R.S. Garg, J.1. The petitioner, a resident of Junagadh, has come to this Court submitting, inter alia, that recovery of fee for entry into the protected monument is per se illegal and the fee cannot be collected under the Resolution passed by the Upperkot Development Committee.2. According to the petitioner, the Upperkot area encircles Buddhist caves and other protected monuments of national importance and even otherwise persons from all over the world, who come to visit Junagadh, make sure that they visit the said Upperkot area. According to the petitioner, all structures, erections, monuments, caves, rocks, sculptures, inscriptions are of historical archaeological interest and are in existence for more than 100 years. According to him, all these protected monuments are within the Upperkot area of Junagadh, which is bounded by fort with a gate. In front of the gate, a board has been placed declaring the property to be a protected monument as archaeological site and remains of national...
Gajriben Wd/O Chimanlal Bhukhandas and 3 ors. Vs. Kantilal Uttamram Ch ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-04-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Guj18; (2007)1GLR904
R.S. Garg, J.1. Shri S.H. Sanjanwala, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. The appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dtd.14/12/1988 passed by the Assistant Judge, Surat in Regular Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1985 whereunder the learned appellate judge confirmed the judgment and decree dtd.30/11/1984 passed by the Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Surat in Regular Civil Suit No. 637 of 1983.3. The appeal has been admitted for hearing the parties on 6/2/1989, on the following substantial question of law;i. Whether the courts below have materially erred in holding that the relationship between the appellants and the respondent was that of licensor and licensee and also erred in holding that the court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit?4. The facts in nutshell are that the plaintiff filed the suit submitting inter-alia that one Chimanlal Bhukhandas was given licence to stay in the suit premises, the plaintiffs needs th...
Jaydip Babulal Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-03-2006
Reported in: (2007)3GLR2710
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate, Mr. Yogesh Thakkar, appearing on behalf of petitioners and learned AGP, Mr. Dabhi, appearing on behalf of respondent. 2. In both the matters, rule has been issued by this Court on 2.8.2006, made it returnable on 30.8.2006. 3. Brief facts of the present petition being SCA No. 16042/2006 are that petitioner was appointed as Safai Kamdar by order dated 21.10.1993 passed by respondent with fixed pay of Rs. 300/- per month for working three hours everyday. According to petitioner, he was working with diligence and honesty at Choki No. 3, 4, 6 and 7 and as the person working at Choki No. 1, 2, 5 and 8 passed away, the petitioner was entrusted with additional work by way of order of appointment for additional three hours and additional Rs. 300/- per month paid to the petitioner by the respondent. On 16.5.2006, the service of petitioner has been terminated as a part time employee by respondent without giving any opportunity to the petitioner which ...
Javatiben Bhupsinhiji Vs. Narpatsinh Bhupsinhiji Deleted and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-03-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ186; (2007)2GLR1328
M.S. Shah, J.1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, in view of the fact that the appellant-claimant's petition for compensation under Section 163A was dismissed, in spite of the fact that the Tribunal had recorded the finding that the claimant had suffered paraplegia and loss of use of lower limbs, we had issued notice for final disposal on 06/07/2006. Since the notices were not received back for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, on 10/08/2006, we had permitted the appellant to serve the said respondents by Regd. Post A.D. The cause list indicates that respondent No. 2 is served. Respondent No. 3-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is shown as served by Regd. Post A.D. Though Mr. Vaghela appears for respondent No. 2-owner of the Jeep involved in the accident, none appears for respondent No. 3-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we have thought it fit to take up the appeal for final disposal, as already indicated in our order dated 06/07/2006.2. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Manubhai M. Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-02-2006
Reported in: [2008]296ITR143(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has made this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), for the opinion of this Court on the following question, which arises out of I. T. Appeal No. 121/ Ahd/1991 pertaining to the assessment year 1989-90:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the officer was not justified in disallowing deduction claimed by way of adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act?2. From the facts, it appears that the assessee, who was working as a Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, had filed his return for the year 1989-90, showing total income of Rs. 18,260. The Assessing Officer, by adjustment explanatory sheet, adjusted Rs. 34,562 disallowing the conveyance allowance of Rs. 18,819 and Rs. 4,700 by disallowing the incentive bonus of Rs. 11,578 and assessed the incom...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›