Gujarat Court January 2007 Judgments
Manoj H. Mishra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR573]; (2007)3GLR2503
M.R. Shah, J.1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and/or order declaring the order of revisional authority the respondent No. 3 dated 20-8-1996 removing the petitioner from services, as illegal. Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 20-8-1996 passed by the appellate authority confirming the order of removal dated 30-3-1996.2. Facts leading to the present Special Civil Application as per the petitioner are that the petitioner was working in the Nuclear Power Corporation at Kakarapar Atomic Power Project (for short 'the KAPP') in the post of Tradesman and was the President of Kakarapar Unit Kendriya Sachivalaya Hindi Parishad. That he was selected as General Secretary of the recognized union of Class III and Class IV of KAPP on 7-2-1993. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that monsoon of 1994 was violent and there were heavy rains and water of Kakarapar dam was flowing beyo...
Tag this Judgment!Taha Wire Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: 2008[12]STR793
A.S. Dave, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on the pretext of evasion of duty to the tune of Rs. 1,66,77,194/-, the respondent No. 2-Department procured 7 cheques under coercion, which were given by the petitioner under protest.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not liable for any duty, therefore, the respondents be directed to refund the amount which was encashed and return the remaining cheques to him.Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that a similar case, being Special Civil Application No. 23338 of 2005 Abhishek Fashions Private Limited and Anr. v. Union of India : 2006(202)ELT762(Guj) , was considered by this Court and by an order dated 21-1-2006, directions were given for refund of the amount which was encashed by the Department.3. The fact remains whether the cheques were obtained under coercion or threat. That is a question of fact. Therefore, once the Court believed that in the aforesaid case the cheques wer...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanshyam R. Sharma Vs. Commandant and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: (2007)2GLR2305
M.R. Shah, J.1. This Special Civil Application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order of dismissal dated 5.8.1993 by which on conclusion of the departmental enquiry the petitioner came to be dismissed from service.2. The petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable in the State Reserve Police in the year 1983. Departmental enquiry was initiated against him and he was chargesheeted by chargesheet dated 23rd January 1991 by the Commandant, SRP, Group No.13, Rajkot and the charge against the petitioner was that in order to avoid going on duty to Ahmedabad the petitioner went on sick leave from 3.4.1990 and produced false medical certificate. That the Commandant, SRP No. 10, Ukai, held departmental enquiry and after giving reasonable opportunity found the petitioner guilty and submitted his report. Thereafter the Commandant issued a show cause notice dated 14.7.1993 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be ...
Tag this Judgment!Sureshbhai Jehaji Thakor Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2488
ORDERRavi R. Tripathi, J.1. Petitioner -original accused is aggrieved by judgment and order dated 13-10-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patan in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2002, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to confirm the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Siddhapur (JMFC, for short) in Criminal Case No. 1317 of 1989 dated 12-4-2002. The learned JMFC convicted the present petitioner for an offence under Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ('the Act', for short) and was pleased to award 2 years R.I., fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, 2 months R.I. under Section 16(1) of the Act.2. Mr. B.S. Supehia, learned Advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued that the judgment and order passed by the learned JMFC, Siddhpur, confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patan is contrary to law and requires to be quashed and set aside in light of the fact that under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Textiles Labour Union, Nadiad Through Authorised Representative Vs. Un ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2007
Reported in: (2007)2GLR1202
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner Textile Labour Union has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and challenged the impugned order dated 22-06-2005 (Annexure-L) passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (for short, SAAIFR) as well as the impugned order dated 30-10-2002 (Annexure-A) passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (for short, SBIFR), and prayed that respondent No. 2 Mafatlal Industries Limited be directed to pay salary to the members of the petitioner Union on the basis of current D.A. as applicable to the industry and respondent No. 2 be further directed to pay the difference of salary wef 30-11-2002 on the basis of prevalent D.A. index. Thereafter, by way of an amendment, prayer Clause 12 (BB) was amended in the petition with the permission of the Court, which reads as under:12 (BB) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorary or writ of mandam...
Tag this Judgment!Nazmabegam Nazirbeg Mirza and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR609]; (2007)2GLR1206
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate direction to the respondents to transfer the petitioners to Ahmedabad forthwith. Rule was issued in this petition on 23.4.2001. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is being finally heard today. 2. The petitioner No. 1 is a Woman Police Constable and the petitioner No. 2 is a Police Constable. Both the petitioners are stated to be husband and wife. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the instant petition, as culled out from the contents thereof, are that initially the petitioners were serving under the Police Department at Ahmedabad. It is alleged that they were wrongly transferred out of Ahmedabad District to Vadodara, due to which the domestic life of the petitioners has been disrupted, since the family consists of the mother-in-law of the petitioner No. 1 and five minor childre...
Tag this Judgment!Sami Kalavni Mandal Vs. State of Gujarat and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2007
Reported in: (2007)2GLR1313
Abhilasha Kumari, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order declaring that the communication dated 7-11-1998 of the respondent No. 2 whereby the application of the petitioner dated 18-8-1999 was rejected, as well as the communication dated 13-10-1999 of the respondents No. 1 and 3 whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected, is illegal, ultra vires and bad in law. It is further prayed that the respondents No. 1 and 2 be directed to consider the application of the petitioner dated 18-8-1999 as an exceptional case and grant the prayer for revival and change of the Uttar Buniyadi School from village Ved to Sami village, as prayed for by the petitioner.2. Rule was issued by this Court on 5.7.2000. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard and finally decided today.3. Briefly stated, the facts e...
Tag this Judgment!Adiya Fuels Ltd. Vs. Bilt Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-23-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Guj140; 2007(4)ARBLR110(Gujarat)
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Rule, returnable today. Mr. A.R. Thacker waives service of rule on behalf of respondent. With the consent of parties, this application is taken up for final hearing today.2. The applicant of this Civil Application has filed First Appeal No. 17 of 2006 under Section 37(i)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Act') which is admitted by this Court and pending for final hearing. By this Civil Application, it is prayed that during the pendency of the said First Appeal, the order passed by the trial Court i.e. by learned Additional District Judge, Gandhidham, Kutch in C.M.A. No. 215 of 2005 may be stayed during the pendency of the appeal.3. The Civil Application has been opposed by the respondents on the ground that the award given by the Arbitrator should be treated as a money decree, and therefore, absolute stay cannot be granted and the applicant may be directed to deposit the amount awarded by the Arbitrator.4. ...
Tag this Judgment!Manojbhai Laljibhai Kabaria and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2007
Reported in: (2007)2GLR1697
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. 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 26.2.2002 rendered in Sessions Case No. 283 of 1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 22, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad by which the appellants (A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-5) of both these appeals have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years for the offence under Section 304B IPC, R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 500/- i.d., to undergo R.I. for a further period of 15 days for the offence under Section 498A IPC and R.I. for six months and fine of Rs. 500/- i.d., to undergo R.I. for a further period of 15 days for the offence under Section 4 of the Act. It is also ordered that all the sentences impose...
Tag this Judgment!Manibhai and Brothers (Sleeper) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Guj100; 2007(3)ARBLR495(Gujarat)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner, a partnership firm, under took contract to supply sleepers to the respondent-Railways. The said contract was also re-entered by virtue of a repeat order. A dispute between the parties as to the rate payable per sleeper arose and hence as per standard terms of contract between the parties an Arbitrator named one Shri R.C. Agarwal came to be appointed on 3/7/2000. On 8/7/2002 the said Arbitrator resigned owing to his transfer to a different region. On 3/2/2003 the General Manager of respondent-Railways appointed one Shri Viswash Choubey as the Arbitrator with a condition to finalize the case within four months. On 29/9/2003 Shri Choubey resigned. Hence on 5/11/2003 one Shri A.K. Harit was appointed as the new Arbitrator with a direction to complete the arbitration proceedings within a period of four months.2. On 2/8/2005 the Arbitrator recorded minutes and in paragraph No. 5 it was recorded thus, 5.0. Both the parties agreed to extend the time limit for f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »