Gujarat Court January 2008 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.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. P. Saguna Wd/O. P. Balakrishna and 3 ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-16-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1733; 2008GLH(1)616; (2008)2GLR1357
D.H. Waghela, J.1. These appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) are preferred by two insurance companies from the awards made under Section 163A of the Act and, having involved common question of law, they are disposed by this common judgment after hearing arguments in extenso at the admission stage.2. In First Appeal No. 2042 of 2007, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has challenged the award in MACP No. 340 of 2001 awarding compensation of Rs. 4,62,839/- with cost and interest @ 7.5% p.a. to the heirs of deceased P.Balakrishna, aged 29, who met with an accident on 19.11.2000 at 07.30 p.m. on Gandhidham-Kandla Highway while driving the scooter which slipped due to some obstruction on the road and who succumbed to his injuries on 23.11.2000. The Claims Tribunal turned down the plea of the insurance company that the deceased himself was a tortfeaser and, due to his own negligence, he sustained injuries and died even as the owner of the vehicle and...
Desai Neeta Harjibhai Vs. Gujarat Public Service Commission and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-16-2008
Reported in: 2008GLH(1)326; (2008)1GLR641
R.M. Doshit, J.1. This Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises from the common judgment and order dated 13th December, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in so far as the above Special Civil Application No. 23734 of 2007 has been rejected. The appellant is the writ petitioner.2. Pursuant to the advertisement given by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') published on 17th March 2006, the appellant writ petitioner had applied for selection and appointment to the post of District Education Officer Class-I (Administrative Branch) or equivalent post. The appellant was called upon to take elimination test. The appellant successfully took the said elimination test. Nevertheless she was not called for the interview. The reason given out was that she did not possess the requisite qualifications. Upon further inquiry, the petitioner was informed that she did not possess the requisite experience. Feeling aggrieved, the peti...
Rajula Nagarpalika Vs. Arvindbhai Ravjibhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-16-2008
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR952]
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. R.V. Desai for the, petitioner, Rajula Nagarpalika and Mr. K.N. Shastri, learned advocate for respondents-workmen.Rule. Service of Rule is waived by learned Advocate Mr. K.N. Shastri on behalf of the respondents-workmen. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of both the learned advocates, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. Through this petition, petitioner is challenging the ex parte award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar in Reference (IT) No. 38 of 2002 dated 22.3.2005 wherein the Tribunal has decided ex parte in absence of the petitioner on the ground that inspite of repeated opportunity given to the petitioner, petitioner has remained absent before the Tribunal and ultimately Tribunal decided the matter ex parte against the petitioner. Tribunal has granted benefit of permanency in favour of total seven workmen those who are working as Safai Kamdar with the petitioner with effect ...
Patel Rameshbhai Ramabhai and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-15-2008
Reported in: (2008)3GLR2049; 2008GLH(1)298
K.M. Thaker, J.1. Mr. R.A. Patel, advocate for petitioner, made request for leave to amend. Granted. Accordingly, para: 1 of petition is amended.2. The petitioners have preferred present petition against the order passed by the Mamlatdar: ALT being order dated 26.11.1990 and order dated 8.9.1992 passed by the Deputy Collector as well as order dated 13.2.1997 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The petitioners have also challenged order dated 22.4.1997 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in review application preferred by the petitioners against the earlier order dated 13.2.1997.3. The only ground, on which the petitioners have preferred present petition against the aforesaid orders is that the action initiated by the respondents against the action of petitioner No. 2 of family arrangement, was initiated after inordinate delay of almost 9 years and, therefore, the said action and subsequent actions are hit by the vice of delay and, therefore, are unsustainable.4. The facts, which...
Hemal A. Kanuga (Company Secretary) and 4 ors. Vs. the Registrar of Co ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-11-2008
Reported in: [2008]143CompCas8(Guj); [2008]83SCL220(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. Challenge made in this group of 15 petitions is against the purported show-cause notice dated 28.11.2007 issued by the respondent i.e. Registrar of Companies, Gujarat to the Officers and/or Directors of Suzlon Energy Limited alleging violation of the provisions contained in different Sections of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioners have sought excuse in respect of any offence, if committed, by the petitioners, by invoking the provisions contained in Section 633(2) of the Act. The petitioners are apprehending that the respondent may prosecute the petitioners for the alleged violation of the provisions contained in different Sections of the Act.2. It is the case of the petitioners that the Company's balance sheet at the end of every financial year duly records the true and fair financial position. The profit and loss account of the said Company at the end of every financial year duly records the true and fair profit and loss position of the Company for such period. On ...
Dwarkadas Prabhudas Patel and anr. Vs. Thakore Laxmanji Dhulaji and 4 ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-11-2008
Reported in: 2008GLH(1)714; (2008)1GLR870
K.M. Thaker, J.1. By this application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, the applicants, who are the original-petitioners, have prayed for condonation of delay of 1622 days in preferring the application for bringing heirs of original-respondent No. 1, who expired on 30.3.2003 on record. On behalf of the respondents, adjournments have been sought to file affidavit to oppose the application. Despite adjournments having been granted since 11th December 2007, until now no affidavit has been filed.2. It is pertinent to note that in present case the original-petition has been filed in November 1999 and is admitted, and is pending for final hearing.3. As per the averments made in the application, it is after the admission of the petition that the respondent No. 1 expired in March 2003. It is the case of the applicants that the applicants came to know about the sad demise of respondent No. 1 only when the matter came to be taken up for final hearing in December 2007 when they were informed by ...
M.M. Kashyap Vs. State of Gujarat and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-11-2008
Reported in: 2008GLH(1)373
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr. Dabhi, learned AGP waives notice of Rule for respondent.2. With the consent of the learned advocate for both the sides, the matter is finally heard.3. The short facts of the case appear to be that the father of the petitioner was serving as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in SRP Group No. 8, Gondal, had expired on 01.07.2000 while on duty. On 09.02.2001, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. The application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 02.06.2007. It is under these circumstances, the present petition.4. Heard Mr. Supehia, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Dabhi, learned AGP for the State Authorities.5. It appears that first ground considered for rejection of the application is the limitation and the second ground is on the aspect of income. It is the case of the petitioner as stated in para 9 that of the petition that neither the information was given nor any application was forwarded for appointment o...
Vadodara Mahanagarpalika Naukar Mandal Vs. the State of Gujarat and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: (2008)2GLR1163
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh for petitioners, Mr. Sunit S. Shah, learned GP with Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Ms. Kiran Pandey and Mr. KJ Dwivedi, learned AGPs for the respondent State authority and Mr. Pranav G. Desai, learned Advocate for respondent Baroda Municipal Corporation.2. When these matters are taken up for hearing, learned advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitions involving same and identical question filed by the concerned employees of the respondent corporation but same have not been notified because of the office objections raised by the Registry and he requested before this Court to call for papers of those petitions and accordingly, considering his request, registry of this Court was directed to dispense with the office objections raised by the registry and to send papers of those petitions and therefore, registry has sent papers of Special Civil Application No. 327, 328, 330,331,332,333,334, 336,...
Ganeshbhai Ambalal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR298]; 2008GLH(1)525; (2008)2GLR951
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr. Pandya, learned AGP for the respondent State, waives service of notice of Rule. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard today.2. The only question arises for consideration is whether the Government Corrigendum dated 11.9.1979 can be given effect retrospectively or prospectively.3. The short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner was sent for training for farm management vide order dated 14.11.1972 and such training was from 20.11.1972 and was for a period of six months. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Agriculture Assistant vide order dated 20.2.1973.4. At the time when the petitioner was sent for training, the Government Resolution dated 24.1.1973 was prevailing and as per the said resolution of the State Government, the training of farm management was to be treated as in-service training, instead of pre-service training, but as the period was six months, it was re...
Maganlal Madhavdas Patel Vs. the Managing Director and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: 2008GLH(1)472
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr. Rawal appearing for respondents waives notice of Rule and Mr. Dabhi waives notice of Rule for respondent No. 4.2. The short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioner was earlier admitted in Kadi Civil Hospital on 13.12.2004 and it was detected that the Anterior Wall was with MI. Thereafter, on 18.12.2004, all of a sudden there was a chest pain to the petitioner and the family members and the relatives of the petitioner got the petitioner investigated through one Dr. Yagneshbhai who has opined for reputed hospital at Ahmedabad and relatives of the petitioner shifted the petitioner to Apollo Hospital at Ahmedabad. On the very day, angiography was undertaken and as there was blockage in the artery, angioplasty was also undertaken and he was discharged thereafter on 20.12.2004. The petitioner paid the bill of Rs. 65,201/- to the Apollo Hospital, Ahmedabad, and also incurred other medical expenses. The petitioner submitted the bill in all for Rs. 66,90...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »