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.
Khodabhai K. Mali Vs. Rasiklal B. Bhodbunja and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: 2008GLH(1)543; (2008)1GLR913
K.M. Thaker, J.1. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.5.1992 passed by the Secretary (Appeals) in the case registered as SRD-38/86. The petitioner has also prayed that the order dated 13.10.1984 passed by the Deputy Collector may be restored.2. The facts, on which, the petitioner has based the petition and challenged the aforesaid order, are as follows.2.1 The petition relates to property bearing Tika No. 9/4, vibhag: A at City Survey No. 40 in taluka and district Vadodara. It is the claim of the petitioner that the property is in his ownership since last about 70 to 75 years. The petitioner, on the basis of the alleged possession of property, claims ownership and title of the property in question.2.2 The first attempt of the petitioner for the said properties, which was made before City Survey Superintendent by virtue of application before the said authority failed in October, 1983 inasmuch as the said autho...
Mangrol Takuka Panchayat Vs. Ranabhai @ Gagubhai Gigabhai and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Guj123; 2008GLH(1)791; (2008)2GLR1109
K.M. Thaker, J. 1. In present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Mangrol Taluka Panchayat is the petitioner and has challenged order dated 17.2.1993 and order dated 6.5.93 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Junagadh, The petitioner Panchayat had entered into the litigation for securing possession of public premises [residential accommodation] allotted to one Mr. JB Vagh, i.e. father of the respondents No. 2 and 3. It has come on record that said Mr. Vagh died in December 1988.2. The petitioner Panchayat expected that on the sad demise of Mr. JB Vagh, to whom the quarter in question was allotted, the vacant and peaceful possession would be handed over to the Panchayat by his legal heirs and representatives, but the failure on part of the legal heirs and representatives of Mr. Vagh resulted into the litigation which has given rise to the present petition. 3. The facts, on which the petitioner has based the contentions and prayed for the relief in the petit...
Chitra M. Prakashker and 35 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-09-2008
Reported in: 2008GLH(1)527; (2008)2GLR1031
Jayant Patel, J.1. All in-service doctors, whose services are governed by various statutory Rules framed by the Government in exercise of the power under Article 309 of the Constitution, including that of Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Conduct Rules' for the sake of convenience), Gujarat Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'General Rules' for the sake of convenience), and Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 ((hereinafter referred to as the 'Pension Rules' for the sake of convenience), have preferred all the petitions for challenging the policy of the State Government vide Resolution dated 29.3.2007 for discontinuing Non-Practicing Allowance (hereinafter referred to as 'NPA' for the sake of convenience) and for permitting them for private practice after office hours. As the policy of the Government also provides for giving option to in-service doctors, who have completed 15 ye...
Sri Adarsh Sanskar Dham Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-09-2008
Reported in: 2008GLH(1)777
K.M. Thaker, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 22.7.1998 (Annexure - F) whereby the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, cancelled the recognition of the Ashram Sala, which was being run by the petitioner trust.2. In the petition, while challenging the said order dated 22.7.1998, the petitioner has raised a contention in Paragraph 6(g) which, in nutshell is that for the same incident, the petitioner cannot be penalized twice. 2.1 Though the petitioner, has mentioned other grounds in the petition, at the time of hearing, the petitioner has mainly and essentially attacked the impugned order on the aforesaid ground. 2.2 Against the said contention, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the petition suffers from suppression of material facts and the petitioner, therefore, does not deserve any relief. 2.3 So as to consider the rival contentions it is necessary to take note of the factual background stated in the petition as well as the other relevant ...
Landesbank Badenwurttemberg Vs. Nova Petorchemicals Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-09-2008
Reported in: [2008]144CompCas568(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The applicant-company, namely, Landesbank Baden-wurttemberg has taken out this judge's summons praying for the direction to the respondent-company to furnish the particulars of interest as related party in the list of creditors for unsecured loans shown in Schedule V to the scheme, with the respondent-company, the resulting company, its promoters and directors. The applicant has also prayed for the direction that on receipt of the above particulars, the respondent should reclassify the list of creditors for unsecured loans into two groups, namely, creditors for unsecured loans of related parties and creditors for unsecured loans by non-related parties. The applicant has prayed for the interim relief to the effect that proposed meeting of the creditors for unsecured loans to be held on January 11, 2008, should be postponed and be held only after further direction of this Court on receipt of the abovementioned information.2. An affidavit is filed by one Mr. Pankaj Inder Mo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›