Gujarat Court March 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.
The Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Rameshkumar Kantilal ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)IIILLJ227Guj
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocate, Mr. R.M.Meena, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. In the present petition, the petitioner Corporation has challenged the order passed by Controlling Authority dated 17th February, 2005, wherein, Controlling Authority at Nadiad has directed to petitioner to pay the amount of gratuity Rs. 3,50,000/- with 10% simple interest, which is due in favour of respondent. This order of Controlling Authority was challenged by petitioner ' Corporation before the Appellate Authority, Baroda being Gratuity Appeal No. 36 of 2005, wherein, by order dated 5th December, 2005, the Appellate Authority at Baroda has confirmed the order of Controlling Authority at Nadiad dated 17th February, 2005 and directed the petitioner Corporation to pay Rs. 3,50,000/- with 10% simple interest w.e.f. 1st June, 2004 to the concerned respondent employee. 3. Learned Advocate, Mr. Meena, has submitted that against the respondent, departmental inquiry was initiated for the...
Manidhari International Vs. O.L. of Jalan Ispat Casting Ltd. and 4 ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-13-2006
Reported in: [2008]88SCL272(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. Admit. The Official Liquidator present in the court waives service of process of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are Secured Creditors. In view of the order proposed to be passed, we do not think notices are required to be issued to the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Even otherwise, respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have no stakes in the present matter. 2. The facts for disposal of the present appeal in nutshell are that certain properties of the company under liquidation were sought to be auctioned. There were bidders in different groups. The present appellant made the highest offer for group SB and submitted the earnest money deposit. When the matter came up before the learned Company Judge for confirmation of the sale and acceptance of the offer made by the appellant, certain objections were raised and the learned Company Judge observed that the Official Valuer's report was not proper. The valuation was to be re-done and the property was ...
Patel Wines Vs. Natpur Co-operative Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-13-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Guj116; (2006)2GLR1227
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. By filing this revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner who is a third party in Special Darkhast No. 119 of 1989 has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nadiad dated 7.2.1998 passed below Exhibit 30. Respondent No. 1 cooperative bank is the decree holder and a money decree was passed against respondent Nos. 2 to 6 herein. The decree-holder thereafter tried to execute the said decree by attaching the immovable properties of the judgment debtor. During the pendency of Execution Application No. 119 of 1989 the present petitioner gave an application at Exhibit 30 as a third party. The aforesaid third party submitted that he is a sitting tenant of the premises in question and, therefore, the property in question may not be sold by way of public auction. The Executing Court by the impugned order rejected the said objections of the third party. The Executing Court ...
B. Patel and Co. and Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-13-2006
Reported in: (2006)3GLR2513
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Since common point is involved in all these matters, with the consent of parties, all these matters are taken together for final hearing.2. In all these matters, arbitration proceedings commenced under the provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940. The Arbitrator gave his award and for the purpose of execution, the same applications were submitted under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for enforcing the said award being Misc. Civil Application Nos. 10, 9, 3, 6, 4 and 5 of 1994 before Civil Judge, S.D., Mirzapur (upon transfer to Civil Judge, S. D., Gandhinagar re-numbered as 33, 32, 37, 40, 38 and 39 of 1995 respectively). At the stage when the applications were pending before the Civil Court, the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 came into force. In that view of the matter, an application was given by the State before the trial Court in each of the above matter for transferring the said proceedings to the Tribunal constitut...
Shri Satish Chand Singhal Vs. the State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: IV(2007)BC362; 2006CriLJ3854; (2006)3GLR2209
J.M. Panchal, J.1. By filing abovenumbered three applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner who is ordered to be impleaded as an accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) in Criminal Case No. 129/99, Criminal Case No. 127/99 and Criminal Case No. 128/99 instituted by the respondent No. 2 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar, against the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 has prayed to quash the abovenumbered three criminal cases lodged by the respondent No. 2. 2. The facts emerging from all the abovenumbered three applications are common and, therefore, this Court proposes to refer to the facts of Criminal Misc. Application No. 6682/2005 for convenience, which are as under.3. The respondent No. 2, who is original complainant, is proprietor of Bharat Cotton Company, which is de...
Noble Institute (Education) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: 2006[3]STR497
Anil R. Dave, J.1. Rule Service of rule is waived by Standing Counsel Shri Yogesh Ravani for the respondents.2. Looking to the facts of the case, the learned advocates have agreed for final hearing of the petition and therefore the petition has been finally heard today.3. The petitioner has challenged the validity of a demand notice dated 29.6.2005 issued by the Superintendent of Service Tax, Range-V Division I, Ahmedabad - respondent No. 4 herein. By virtue of the said demand notice, the petitioner has been called upon to pay the service tax on Rs. 95,68,683/- @ 8% which comes to Rs. 7,65,475/- and interest on the said amount.13. Though a show-cause notice has been challenged in the petition and in normal circumstances, the Court would have disposed of the petition on the ground that it is premature, looking to the facts of the case, in our opinion, it requires some consideration and, therefore, we dispose of the same by giving certain directions.4. The question involved in the petiti...
State of Gujarat Vs. Kalavatiben Liladhar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: II(2007)DMC195; (2007)2GLR1272
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. This appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the appellant -State of Gujarat, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 5.9.2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 193 of 1994, whereby the respondent ' original accused (for short 'accused') has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution, as culled out from the material on record, is that the deceased Tulshaben alias Tulsiben was married to one Premjibhai, who is the brother of the accused. Two months prior to the incident the deceased and her husband had come to reside near the house of the accused on Street No. 5, Santkabir Road, Gokulnagar, Rajkot. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused used to frequently quarrel with the deceased on the issue of sharing water from the water tap. The accu...
Executive Engineer Vs. Shankarbhai Jivabhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR164]
H.K. Rathod, J.1. In both these petitions, Award passed by the Labour Court, Bharuch, in Reference (LCB) No. 602 of 1990 (Old (LCB) No. 955 of 1989) dated 31.1.2003 is challenged. The Labour Court, Bharuch, has set aside the termination order and granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 35% backwages for interim period. The employer has raised grievance against reinstatement and 35% backwages whereas the workman has raised grievance for denial of 65% backwages, therefore, both the matters are heard together. I have heard learned advocate Shri Sudhanshu Patel on behalf of employer and Shri P.H.Pathak, learned advocate appearing for the workman.2. The services of the workman, according to him, were terminated on 1.2.1987, dispute against termination was referred for adjudication on 28.9.1989 to the Labour Court. According to the workman, he remained in service from 11.8.1983 to 9.9.1984 as a daily wager and from 10.9.1984 to 31.1.1987 as a workcharge employee in the scale of...
Gangotri Inorganic Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: (2006)2GLR1425
D.N. Patel, J.1. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Siraj Gori waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India Mr. Malkan waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 2. The present petition has been preferred against the communication dated 30.7.2002, order dated 12.8.2004 and the notice dated 26th December, 2005 (Annexures SC, SD and SE respectively to the memo of the petition).2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner mainly submitted that no notice has ever been issued by the respondent No. 1 authority before passing the final order of payment of stamp duty of Rs. 8,10,000/- as referred to in the order dated 12.8.2004 (Annexure SD) impugned notice at Annexure SE to the memo of the petition. Thus, no opportunity of being heard has been afforded to the petitioner for fixing the payment of stamp duty by the respondents. It is also submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the audi...
Alimamad Mersha Shaikh Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: (2006)3GLR2472
Akshay H. Mehta, J.1. Rule. Service of rule is waived by Mr. MA Patel, Ld. APP for the respondent State.At the request of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today itself.2. Petitioner is the husband of one Zarina, daughter of Hasambhai Kumbhar. He has in this revision application challenged the order of the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rapar, Dist. Kutch, dated 13/2/2006. By the said order the Ld. Magisrate has directed that Zarina, aged 16 years 3 months be sent to Mahila Kalyan Kendra, Bhuj and she be kept there till she attains age of 18 years. It is the say of the petitioner that Zarina is his legally wedded wife and when she is willing to stay with him, such direction cannot be passed by the Ld. Magistrate.3. I have perused the record of this revision application. It appears that the petitioner and Zarina stayed in the same locality and they developed intimacy, which resulted in Zarina leaving her parents and going to the petiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »