Gujarat Court February 2006 Judgments
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Babubhai Dipubhai Chauhan and 4 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: 2006ACJ2688; (2006)2GLR1514
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Shalin N.Mehta for appellant -New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through this appeal, appellant has challenged award made by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad City in MACP No. 1297 of 2003 dated 25th April, 2005 wherein the Claims Tribunal has, while partly allowing the claim petition, directed opponents to pay Rs. 5,62,000.00 jointly and severally to the claimants with interest at the rate of 6 per cent p.a. From the date of claim petition till realization with proportionate costs. 2. Brief facts of this appeal are as under: It is the case of claimants that on 30th October, 2003 at about 4.00 p.m., deceased Ranjanben and her husband, petitioner No. 1 were coming on their Motor Bike bearing Registration No. GJ-1-CL-4563 from Matar to Ahmedabad via Kheda, Mahemdavad and Khatraj. Said motor bike was being driven by petitioner No. 1 while deceased Ranjanben was sitting as a pillion rider. When they were passing from Kheda Mahemdavad to...
Tag this Judgment!Dipika Kantilal Shukla Vs. State of Gujarat and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR1029]; (2006)3GLR1987
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. In both these writ petitions, the petitioners are physically handicapped persons, who are aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondents, transferring them beyond their place of residence which, according to them is dehors the policy/guidelines framed by the respondents for handicapped persons.2. The brief facts, as narrated in the writ petitions, are that in Special Civil Application No. 10232/96, the petitioner is a handicapped, unmarried lady, who is suffering from total retinal detachment in the left eye and is having 40% blindness in the right eye. In the year 1982, the office of the Industries Commissioner had advertised the post of Junior Clerk, reserved for handicapped persons and having applied for the same, the petitioner was called for interview in the reserved quota for handicapped persons. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Junior Clerk vide order dated 22.9.82. At the time of appointment she had produced the certificates of the Civil Su...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Nirmalaben J. Gameti Vs. the Chief Matropolitan Magistrate
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: (2006)2GLR1796
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. Brief facts which led to the filing of the writ petition are that the petitioner herein is a member of the Scheduled Tribe. The respondent No.1 i.e. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad issued an advertisement dated 18.8.90 in the News Paper for recruitment to Class III and IV posts and invited applications from eligible candidates for the same, which were to be sent within seven days of the said advertisement. The petitioner, being H.S.C. qualified applied for the post of Clerk in pursuance to the said advertisement. As far as the eligibility criteria was concerned, the petitioner fulfilled all criteria. Regarding the criteria of age, the advertisement stipulated that the age of a candidate should be 18 to 25 years and persons belonging to Scheduled Tribe/Schedule Caste, Handicapped and Ex-servicemen category etc. would be given relaxation in age according to Rules. At the time of the advertisement the petitioner was about 28 years and 3 months of age i.e. a...
Tag this Judgment!S.L.M. Industries Ltd. (Formerly Slm Maneklal Ltd.) Vs. Rajendra Elect ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: [2007]135CompCas243(Guj); [2008]84SCL15(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. At the first call, Mr. R.S.Sanjanwala, learned Counsel appeared for the appellants; none appeared for respondent though the name of Mr. K.V.Shelat, learned Counsel, appears in the Cause List. Similarly, though name of Mr. Anip A. Gandhi, learned Counsel for the respondent in O.J.A. No. 42 of 2002, is shown, but, he was also not present.2. On the second call, Mr. Sanjanwala appeared, but,none appears for the respondents. Before we could proceed to dictate the order, Mr. A.V.Trivedi, learned Counsel, submitted that he would be appearing under the authority of Mr. Anip A. Gandhi, learned Counsel in O.J.A. No. 42 of 2002.3. Number of Company Petitions were filed against the present appellants S.L.M. Industries Limited. The petitions remain pending for some time and when the matters came up at the admission stage, the parties were heard and by the impugned Order dated 12th September, 2002 passed in Company Petition No. 131 of 1989 and the connected group matters, the Company...
Tag this Judgment!Kokilaben W/O Jaswantlal Panchal Vs. Regional Passport Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Guj149; (2006)2GLR1165
M.R. Shah, J.Rule. Shri J.M. Malkan, learned Asst. Solicitor General of India with Shri M.A.Shaikh, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government waive service of rule on behalf of the respective respondents in respective petition. 1. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, all these matters are taken up for final hearing today.2. As the common question of law and facts arise in this group of petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.3. The petitioners in respective petition are either already having passport issued by the respondent authority and/or they have applied for fresh passport. The respective petitioners have prayed for in the respective petition to direct the respondent passport authority to make necessary correction/s and/or the change/s in the passport with respect to either date of birth and/or place of birth as in the certificate issued by the competent authority under the provisions of Births a...
Tag this Judgment!Scan Computer Consultancy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(204)ELT43(Guj); 2008[12]STR108
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition challenges the communication dated 10/1/2006 (Annexure E) and dated 20/1/2006 (Annexure G) issued by the office of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad. Though, the petitioner has also challenged the Order in Appeal No. 152/2005 (Ahd-I)CE/Comr(A-II) dated 16/8/2005 (Annexure B), for the reasons that follow hereinafter, it is not necessary to deal with the said prayer.2. The controversy between the parties stands concluded by a decision of this Court in the case of Hussain Haji Harun alias Hussein Kabiju v. Union of India : 1995(77)ELT803(Guj) and hence, it is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail. For the same reason, the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal today. Rule. Mr. Malkan is directed to waive service.3. For the period from 22/1/1995 to 1/9/1995, by Order in Original dated 30/10/2000, the excise duty liability to the tune of Rs. 3,90,363/- was fastened on the petitioner with equal amount of pen...
Tag this Judgment!Aarti Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: 2008[11]STR556
H.N. Devani, J.1. Learned advocate, Mr. Dhaval Shah, seeks permission to amend the prayer clause. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out immediately.2. Heard Mr. Dhaval Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, and Mr. Jitendra Malkan, for the respondents.3. RULE. Mr. Malkan waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. As the controversy involved in the present petition lies in a very narrow compass the same is taken for final hearing and disposal.4. This petition challenges the Order Nos. M/238/WZB/2005/C-III, S/351/WZB/2005/C-III, A/523/WZB/2005/C-III, dated 27-4-2005 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai (CESTAT) as well as the Order-in-Appeal No. YPP/229/SRT/2003, dated 13th February, 2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Surat-1 in Appeal F. No. V-2(54)169/SRT-I/DIV-II/2002.5. By an order dated 7th August, 2002, passed by the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, a dem...
Tag this Judgment!Anilbhai Natubhai Patel Vs. Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel and 7 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-2006
Reported in: (2006)2GLR1233
M.S. Shah, J.1. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, three councillors of Anand Municipality have challenged the election of the first respondent herein (Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel) as President of the Anand Municipality on 8.11.2005.The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 22391 of 2005 has also prayed that petitioner - (Vijaybhai Haribhai Patel) be declared as having been elected as the President of Anand Municipality. The petitioners in the other two petitions have supported the prayer for the said declaration.2. Since the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 does not provide for any machinery or forum for determining challenge to election of President and Vice President of the Municipality, this Court has entertained the petitions and heard them on merits.FACTS3. Elections to the Anand Municipality were held on 25.10.2005 and the results were declared on 27.10.2005. Out of total 42 councillors, 19 were elected as the candidates sponsored by BJP and the oth...
Tag this Judgment!Miteshkumar Rameshbhai Patel and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3198; (2006)3GLR1935
J.R. Vora, J.1. At the admission stage, since submissions made at length, the matter was heard finally and learned counsels also agreed for final hearing of the matter.2. Learned advocate Mr. Asin Pandya for the applicants, learned APP Mr. K.C.Shah for the respondent No. 1 ' State of Gujarat and learned advocate Mr. M.A. Bukhari for the respondent No. 2 ' Shri Ismail U. Vohra, were heard at length.3. The present applicants are amongst the accused of Sessions Case No. 199 of 2003 pending before the Court of Sessions i.e. Fast Track Court Judge, at Anand, while respondent No. 1 is the State and the respondent No. 2 herein is the witness of the said trial and filed an application at Ex.245 on 01.03.2005. It was contended by such application that the investigation was biased in favour of the accused and was defective and hence re-investigation was necessary. It was stated that the persons affected in the incident were robbed of their valuables as well as cash amount, but the said muddamal ...
Tag this Judgment!Cholpadi Jagannath Kamath Vs. P.S.V. Mallya and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-2006
Reported in: (2006)IIILLJ1007Guj
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for declaration that the order of removal of the petitioner from the service in question supposed to have been passed against him is null and void and of no effect. The petitioner has also prayed for the declaration that the Regulations 7(2), 7(3) and 19 of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 are illegal and ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was working with Syndicate Bank. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet wherein it was alleged that the petitioner had committed a misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3(1) of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 by showing official favour to certain individuals/firms by permitting unsecured over-drawls, issuing bank guarantees without proper authority, discounting cheques u...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »