Gujarat Court December 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.
Chhaya Grahak Sahkari Bhandar Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-2007
Reported in: (2008)1GLR667; 2008GLH(1)240
K.M. Thaker, J.1. The facts, giving rise to this petition are as follows:The petitioner deals with essential commodities and general commodities in its fair price shops. The petitioner-society, for the said purpose, has been issued two licenses, i.e., licence No. 166 for essential commodities which is issued by Civil Supplies Department and general licence No. 215. It is stated by the petitioner that it has two different branches/shops and it was on account of certain breach alleged to have been committed by one of the two branches of the petitioner society that the respondents threatened to discontinue the regular supply of essential commodities to its another branch against which there were no allegations and/or dues.2. It was in the said background that the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of the respondents of not supplying and/or discontinuing the regular quota of essential commodities to one of its branches.2.1...
Santram GraIn Suppliers Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2230; (2008)1GLR612
K.M. Thaker, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the orders dated 30-7-1994 and 4-4-1996.2. The factual background in light of which present petition is preferred is as follows:2.1 The petitioner firm is a grain merchant and commission agent and was granted Licence No. 679 in the year 1988. The Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 was at relevant time, applicable to it.2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that on 21-7-1994 it had dispatched 201 bags of groundnut weighing 7035 kgs. in favour of M/s. B.A. Matalia & Company, Jamnagar.2.3 It is further stated that the truck bearing registration No. GRY-4078 carrying on the said goods was intercepted by the respondent authorities on 21-7-1994, when upon inspection, the respondent authorities noticed that the aforesaid quantity of groundnut was being transported merely on memo on the letterhead of the petitioner firm, however, ...
Kamleshkumar S/O Muljibhai Jethabhai Parmar Vs. the State of Gujarat a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-04-2007
Reported in: (2008)2GLR1267
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.1. Heard learned counsel Shri. Raval for the petitioner. Rule. Shri. Makwana, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for the respondents.2. The petitioner, son of a deceased Government employee died in harness, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 18/4/2007 passed by the respondent denying him compassionate appointment on irrelevant and extraneous considerations and has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ of mandamus or any other order directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate appointment.3. This matter was heard at length on earlier occasion and it was slated for dictation of judgment. In the meantime learned AGP Mr. Makwana was to place on record the updated compilation of Government instructions/resolutions in respect of compassionate appointment. Today Mr. Makwana has completed his exercise of re-constituting the bunch.4. Facts in brief required to be set out in orde...
Rajendra Babubhai Vakotar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-03-2007
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR56]; (2008)IIILLJ746Guj
A.L. Dave, J.1. The appellant challenges order passed in Special Civil Application No. 3242/2005 on June 20, 2005, dismissing the appellant's petition. In the petition, the challenge was to the decision of the Government not to refer the dispute raised by the present appellant to the Central Government Tribunal and, hence, this appeal.2. The appellant raised a dispute in 2004, claiming that he was working with the respondent-Bank of Baroda, Rakhial Industrial Estate Branch, as a Peon in permanent capacity. He alleged that his services came to be terminated on March 1, 1996 without any reason and without following requisite procedure as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act and in violation of provisions contained in Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-N of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act (probably the appellant-petitioner refers to Industrial Disputes Act). The appellant had raised a dispute by issuing a notice of demand to the respondent, but since he was not reinstated, he, filed...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›