Gujarat Court March 2007 Judgments
Hariharbhai M. Thakar and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-29-2007
Reported in: (2007)2GLR1681
ORDERD.A. Mehta, J.1. In light of the view that the Court is inclined to take the petitions are taken up for final hearing. Rule. Ms. Archana Raval, learned Assistant Government Pleader is directed to waive service.2. The petitioners have preferred these petitions praying for the following relieifs:7. The petitioners therefore pray:(A) That this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned notice at Annexure-A as the same being without authority of law and dehors the provisions of Section 81 of the Act and consequently be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order at Annexure-E and the order dated 22-8-2006 passed by the Additional Secretary (Appeals), Co-operative Societies, Gujarat State at Annexure-I as well as the impugned communication dated 29-12-2006 at Annexure-L and the communication and notice dated 8-1...
Tag this Judgment!Parmar Sanjaykumar Ganpatlal and anr. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-28-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR279]; (2007)3GLR2224
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. P.K. Jani for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Clerk for the respondent-L.I.C. of India.2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has not been considered and rejected by the respondents and based upon such grievance, petitioner has filed this petition.3. Learned Advocate Mr. Clerk who is appearing for the respondent-Corporation has filed detailed affidavit-in-reply to this petition, inter alia denying the contentions raised by the petitioner. Relevant Paras 4, 5 and 6 therefrom are reproduced as under:4. I say that the petitioner No. 1 is the brother of Dineshkumar Ganpatlal Parmar who was employed by the respondent-Corporation and petitioner No. 2 is the father of the said Shri Dineshkumar. Neither petitioner No. 1 as brother nor petitioner No. 2 as father is eligible for compassionate appointment in the respondent-Corporation as per the L.I.C. Recruitment (of Class III and C...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Pravinaben Dashrathlal Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-28-2007
Reported in: (2007)2GLR1195
Anil R. Dave, J.1. ADMIT. Learned Government Pleader Shri Sunit Shah waives service in both the appeals.2. In these appeals, a common judgment delivered in Special Civil Applications Nos. 3740 and 3741 of 2007 dated 9th February, 2007 has been challenged and, therefore, at the request of the learned advocates, both the appeals have been heard together and decided by this common judgment.3. The facts giving rise to the appeals, in a nutshell, are as under:3.1 The appellants-petitioners had passed Higher Secondary Certificate Examination with science subjects i.e. from the Science Stream. They applied for being appointed to the post of Vidya Sahayak (a post similar to a primary school teacher) under one of the schemes framed by the respondent State of Gujarat. For being admitted to PTC course, reservation has been made to the effect that 30% of the admissions are given to students from the science stream. Upon passing HSC examination from science stream, the appellants-petitioners were a...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Jagubhai Bhanabhai Patel and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-2007
Reported in: (2008)1GLR261
R.S. Garg, J.1. Mr.R.C. Kodekar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, for the petitioner, Mrs.Ketty A. Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr.Saurabh Amin, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 are heard.2. Before I refer to the facts of the case, I must record that present is a case, where, Mrs.Ketty A. Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr.Saurabh Amin learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, tried their best to mislead this Court by making false statements and misstatements in the Court. With bruised feeling and bleeding heart, I am required to record all what had taken place in the court in presence of Mr.A.J. Patel, Mr.Shital R.Patel, Mr.Dhirendra Mehta, Ms.Neesha Parikh, Dr.Amee Yajnik, learned Counsel and each person was listening that how these two advocates, despite repeated warning from the Court, were making false misleading statements to obtain favourable orders.3. To start, I asked Mr.Amin that whether the order dtd.29/4/1992 (Annexure...
Tag this Judgment!Pravinchandra Manilal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-23-2007
Reported in: (2007)2GLR1321
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. M.M. Desai appearing on behalf of petitioners and learned Government Pleader Mr. Sunit Shah with learned AGP Mr. Dave, learned AGP Mr. Shukla, learned AGP Mr. Chauhan and learned AGP Mr. Pandit appearing on behalf of respondents State Authorities.2. The other identical matters in respect to same issue have been admitted by this Court which are on today's Board. Therefore, this group of matters are also require to be admitted by this Court. Hence, Rule in each petition. Learned Government Pleader Mr. Sunit Shah with learned AGP Mr. Dave, learned AGP Mr. Shukla, learned AGP Mr. Chauhan and learned AGP Mr. Pandit waive service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents State Authorities. With consent of both the learned advocates, these group of petitions are heard finally today.3. The concise facts of the present petitions is that the petitioners are working as Lecturer initially in Sir K.P. College of Commerce, Athwa Lines, Surat which is aff...
Tag this Judgment!Dahyabhai Dayalbhai Rohit and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-2007
Reported in: (2007)3GLR1974
R.S. Garg, J.1. Shri H.P. Raval, learned Counsel for the petitioner; Shri L.R. Pujari, learned AGP for the respondents No. 1,2 and 3, Shri Dhirendra K. Mehta, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4. 2. The short facts necessary for disposal of the present writ application are that the Bank of Baroda, somewhere in the year 1975 filed Special Civil Suit No. 64 of 1976 against Jayantilal Chunilal Modi and Bhagvandas Chunilal Modi for recovery of principal amount of Rs. 7,000/- and interest thereon. The suit was ultimately decreed by the learned Civil Judge [Senior Division], Bharuch and decree was granted in favour of the Bank of Baroda against the said defendants. In the year 1981, Special Darkhast/Execution Application No. 23 of 1981 was filed by the Bank of Baroda against the Judgment Debtors for recovery of Rs. 25,810/-. As the money was not paid by the Judgment Debtors, certain properties of the Judgment Debtors which were mortgaged with the Bank were asked to be auctioned. On 19.7.83,...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Ramtaji Thakore and ors. Vs. Amit Pransukhlal Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-21-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Guj133
P.B. Majmudar, J. 1. On the last date, these matters were fully heard and when the Court was about to dictate the judgment, Mr. V.M. Pancholi sought time to take instruction whether his client would like to invite an order or would withdraw Exh.5, and the matter was, therefore, adjourned for today. Today, Mr. Pancholi states that his client would not like to withdraw Exh.5 and the Court may dispose of the appeals on merits. Since arguments are fully heard and since both the appeals arise out of the same impugned order and common points are involved in both the appeals, with the consent of learned advocates, both the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Amit Pransukhlal Patel [hereinafter referred to as the original plaintiff] filed Special Civil Suit No. 108 of 2006 against Vishnuji Ramtuji Thakore and 11 others [hereinafter referred to as the original defendants] before the Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad Rural. It is the case of the original plaintiff in the suit that th...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramilaben Chinubhai Parmar and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-21-2007
Reported in: 2007ACJ1565
Akil Kureshi, J.1. This appeal has been filed by National Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging the judgment and award dated 30.9.2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P. No. 204 of 2001.2. On 28.2.2001, one Chinubhai Jivanlal Parmar was travelling on his motor cycle on Sarkhej-Gandhinagar Highway. Motor cycle was hit by a tanker coming from the opposite direction. The accident caused fatal injuries to Chinubhai Jivanlal Parmar. His widow, one son and aged parents, therefore, filed above-mentioned claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 40,00,000 from the driver, owner and insurer of the tanker in question.3. Before the Claims Tribunal, claimants led evidence to establish that the tanker was being driven on the wrong side of the highway which has four lanes and a road divider in between. The Tribunal, therefore, came to the conclusion that accident occurred on account of sole negligence of the tanker driver.4. With respect to question of quantum of c...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jeevabhai Govindbhai Patel and 5 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-21-2007
Reported in: II(2007)ACC682; 2008ACJ955
ORDERD.N. Patel, J.1. The present petition has been preferred against the order dated 8th September, 2006 below. Exh. 26 in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 23 of 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Gandhidham, Kutch, whereby the petitioner company is denied the right of cross-examination of the petitioner.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that the original applicants preferred an application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, where the negligence is not to be proved. But so far as age and income of the applicants is concerned, affidavit was tendered so that on the basis of the age and income, compensation can be calculated. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the person who has filed the affidavit ought to have allowed the cross-examination by the petitioner so far as correctness of age and income is concerned. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the tri...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rani Ben and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2436
M.S. Shah, J.1. This appeal by the insurer of one of the vehicles involved in the motor vehicle accident challenges the judgment and order dated 30.7.2001 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kachchh-Bhuj in the M.A.C.P. No. 354 of 1992 awarding compensation amount of Rs. 18,00,000 with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition to widow, children and brother of the deceased.2. On 18.3.1992, Ramjibhai Bhurabhai Makwana, a Forest Officer in the services of the State Government and his friend Sumarbhai were travelling on motor cycle from Adesar to Bhachau on Ahmedabad-Kandal National Highway. Ramjibhai was driving the motor cycle and Sumarbhai was the pillion rider. When the motor cycle reached near village Vondh, the chhakada rickshaw insured by the appellant insurance company came from the opposite direction and dashed against the motor cycle. On account of the collision between the two vehicles, Ramjibhai, driver of the m...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »