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.
Jamnagar Municipal Corporation Vs. Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporati ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-08-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR290]; (2006)2GLR1391; (2006)IIILLJ980Guj
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. J.R. Nanavati for learned Advocate Mr. A.R. Thacker on behalf of the petitioner. Learned A.G.P. Ms. Archana Raval is appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3.2. In the present petition, petitioner has challenged the letter dated 17th February, 2006 issued by respondent No. 1, except that, there is no challenge raised by the petitioner.3. The brief facts of the present petition is that Jamnagar Municipal Corporation has been exempted by notification dated 12th May, 1989 issued by the Labour and Employment Department in exercises of the power conferred by Section 90 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the E.S.I. Act' for short). According to said notification, Government of Gujarat exempts the Transport Service and Water Works, Jamnagar Municipal Corporation, Jamnagar from the operation of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'E.S.I. Corporation' for short). The letter dated...
State of Gujarat Vs. Kiritbhai Somabhai Bariya
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-08-2006
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR770]
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned AGP Ms. Archana Raval for Petitioner and Ms. Yogini Parikh, learned advocate for Respondent workman. In this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, Petitioner has challenged award made by Labour Court, Baroda in Reference No. 461 of 1990 dated October 28, 2005, wherein Labour Court has partly allowed reference. Labour Court has set aside the termination order and granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 50 per cent back wages for intervening period. Labour Court also awarded cost of Rs. 1,000.00.2. Learned AGP Ms. Raval submitted that the Agricultural Department is not an industry within meaning of Section 2(j) of the ID Act, 1947. She also pointed out about the conditions of service of the Respondent workman. She also raised contention that the Respondent was appointed a part time employee and he was being paid from the contingent fund. She also contended that the burden was upon the Respondent to prove as to whether the depar...
Ajitbhai Ismailbhai Pinjara Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Reported in: (2006)3GLR2074
C.K. Buch, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of conviction passed by ld. Special Judge, Surendranagar in Special Case No. 1/1998 on 17.09.1999 whereby the appellant-original accused has been held guilty of the offences punishable under Section 8(c) R/w Section 21 of The Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) and has been sentenced to suffer R/I for 10 Years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh (Rs. One lakh only), I/d to further undergo S/I for 2 Years.2. We would like to narrate facts in brief so that the evidence led by the prosecution can be appreciated in the perspective of the evidence that has been led by the prosecution before the trial Court. That on 16.01.1998, Police Inspector Mr. HK Chauhan, Police Inspector of State Narcotic Cell, along with his other staff members, were proceeding towards Surendranagar in a vehicle namely jeep-car and when they stopped at a Tea-stall located somewhere near Gebansha Pir Da...
Kiritsinh Dharamvirsinh Vs. Kalubhai Shardulbhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Reported in: (2006)3GLR2031
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. By filing this Revision Application, the petitioner, original plaintiff, has challenged order dated 15-10-1998 passed by Deputy Collector, Palitana in Revision Application No. 2 of 1997-1998. By the said order, the Deputy Collector, Palitana has allowed the Revision Application filed by the original defendants-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein.2. The proceedings arises out of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner herein instituted proceedings before the Mamlatdar under the Act being Case No. 1 of 1995-1996. It was the case of the petitioner herein that he is holding lands bearing Survey Nos. 164, 172 and 173 at village Langala and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are holding lands bearing Survey Nos. 165, 174 and 175 at the same village. It was the case of the petitioner that there is a 'Vahera' (water-course) flowing through the lands held by the respondents and the petitioner and even his predecessor-in-title were assessing Su...
Sterling Centre Premises Owners Co-op. Societies Ltd. Vs. Nanubhai R. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)3GLR1853
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. By filing this Revision Application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, original defendant No. 2 has challenged the order passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vadodara below Exh. 26 in Regular Civil Suit No. 160 of 1997.2. The respondent herein is the original plaintiff of the aforesaid suit. The said suit was filed for a declaration and injunction on the ground that an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff, who was doing advertising business, and original defendant No. 2 (the petitioner herein) to allot some place for placing the advertisement hoardings in the premise of defendant No. 2 for which, according to the plaintiff, a considerable amount was also paid. According to the plaintiff, in spite of the fact that the agreement was executed between them, defendant. No. 2 is not allowing the plaintiff to place such hoarding. Plaint of the suit is annexed with this revision application at page 1. In the prayer clause of the pla...
Atul Hasmukhlal Shah Vs. Deboo Bros and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)3GLR2336
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. By filing this Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, the applicant has challenged the order passed by Executing Court in Special Darkhast No. 17/1990. By the impugned order, the Executing Court has dismissed the execution application filed by the applicant original decree holder.2. The applicant herein instituted a suit being Special Civil Suit No. 48/1979 against Deboo Brothers, a partnership firm as well as against its partners. In the said suit, a money decree was passed by the trial Court and said Deboo Brothers was directed to pay Rs. 43,352/- with 12% interest to the applicants - decree holder of the aforesaid suit. On the basis of said decree, the applicants herein filed an Execution Application being Special Darkhast No. 17/1990 against the judgement-debtor, i.e., Deboo Brothers and its partners. Aforesaid Execution Application was replied by judgement debtor by his reply at Exh.28 contending inter alia that Execution Applicat...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Arvind Shivlal Soni and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: (2006)3GLR1993
ORDER 24. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I pass the following order :-(a) xxx xxx xxx(b) xxx xxx xxxc. ) xxx xxx xxxd. I declare the property at shop No. 7, Ratan Chambers, Ratanpole, Ahmedabad as legally acquired property and order its release from the proceedings. (e) I declare the property at Shop No. 81 at Shethni pole, Ratanpole, Ahmedabad as illegally acquired property and therefore, order its forfeiture to the Central Government free from all encumbrances under Section 7(3) of the Act. As out of the total cost of Rs. 40,000 the AP could explain the source of Rs. 32,500 only which is more than 50% of the total cost, under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, I give an option to pay a fine of Rs. 9,000 (Rupees Nine Thousand Only) i.e. a fine equal to one and one fifth times of the value of unexplained amount in lieu of forfeiture. If the AP chooses to pay fine in lieu of forfeiture, he should make the payment by way of a demand draft payable in favour ...
Naynaben Shantilal Pandya Vs. State of Gujarat and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: (2006)3GLR2034
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. The petitioner, who is working as a Community Organiser, has filed the present writ petition, being aggrieved by the action of the Collector, Banaskantha District (respondent No. 2) whereby the Resolution of the Palanpur Nagarpalika (respondent No. 3) granting 2 advance increments to the petitioner, has been suspended. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Gandhinagar dated 21.5.94 whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid action of respondent No. 2 has been dismissed.2. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 3 -Nagarpalika granted two advance increments to the petitioner vide office order dated 9.3.93. This was done by the said Nagarpalika as per Resolution No. 11 dated 28.4.88. The respondent No. 2, on instituting suo motu proceedings under Section 258 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (herein-after referred to as the Act), vide ord...
Hathising Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(203)ELT394(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. Rule. Mr. Jitendra Malkan, learned Assistant Solicitor General waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1.2. Since the issue involved in this petition is in very narrow compass, the matter is taken up for final hearing.3. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 24-9-2004 passed by CESTAT, Mumbai.4. It is the case of the petitioner that as the credit of duties paid on inputs used in relation to the manufacture of yams sold under exemption to Regd. Co-operative Societies in plain reel hanks would not be available, the petitioner company did not avail credit of duties paid on these quantities of fibres which were used in relation to yarns cleared under the above exemption and also maintained accounts of such transactions. A show cause notice was issued proposing to recover amount of Rs. 6,83,313/- on the ground that the petitioner company has taken this amount as c...
Mohammed Salim Ibrahim Qureshi and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: (2006)3GLR2385
J.M. Panchal, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 575 of 1997 filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code for short) is directed against judgment dated April 24, 1997 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 140 of 1996 by which the two appellants, who were original accused Nos. 1 and 2, have been convicted for commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short), and each sentenced to R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only), in default R.I. for three months, for gruesome murder of Ms. Geetaben Bachubhai Rambhiya, who was engaged in the activity of rescuing cattle, which were being sent to abattoir for illegal slaughtering.Criminal Appeal No. 525 of 1997 is filed by the State Government under Section 377 of the Code wherein prayer is made to impose death sentence on the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 575 of 1997 for causi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »