Gujarat Court October 2007 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 High Court of Gujarat by and Through B.J. Dhandha Vs. State Chief ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-03-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Guj37
D.N. Patel, J.1. This petition has been preferred against the order dated 10th July,2007 passed by Chief Information Commissioner, State of Gujarat in Second Appeal No. 45/2006-07, whereby the order passed by the first Appellate Authority was quashed and set aside and it was directed to supply the information to respondent No. 2. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 2 preferred an application for getting information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the Public Information Officer, High Court of Gujarat on 1st February,2006, whereby following information were sought for:(i) Certified copy of report made by Civil Judge (J.D.), Sanand, District: Ahmedabad on 29/7/1997 in the Vigilance Inquiry Case No. 285 of 1997. (ii) Certified copy of statement of Court Commissioner Shri V.J. Vanodiya.(iii) Certified copy of statement of Ramanbhai Becharbhai Makwana - Respondent No. 2.(iv) Certified copy of the order passed in the inquiry.(v) Certified copies of ...
Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. Ashok K. Jha and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-01-2007
Reported in: 2008GLH(1)164; (2008)1GLR245; (2008)IILLJ339Guj
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Thakore with learned Advocate Mr. N.A. Pandya on behalf the petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. K.M. Patel with learned Advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3.2. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Industrial Court in Appeal (IC) No. 18 of 2001 dated 9-3-2006 whereby the Industrial Court has allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and declared that by notice dated 4-5-1996, the change is considered to be illegal which requires to be withdrawn and re-transferred the respondents workmen to the original place and post.3. According to petitioner, on 4-5-1996, the respondent workmen were working in the Crimping Department of the petitioner company transferred to the Twisting Department as the Twisting Operator by a written order. The respondents have challenged the said order by way of Original Application No. 40 of 1996 before the Labour Court, Surat. The Surat ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›