Gujarat Court August 2008 Judgments
Ahmedabad Municipal Corpo. thro' Transport Manager Vs. Narendrabhai La ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-29-2008
Reported in: 2010ACJ15; (2008)3GLR2661
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr MG Nagarkar appearing on behalf of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation through its Transport Manager - Appellant and learned advocate Mr Sandip C Shah appearing on behalf of the respondents -claimants in both the appeals. Claimant Urvi has filed cross-objection. All these matter are decided by this common judgment and order because it arise from one accident.2. Learned advocate Mr. Nagarkar raised contention before this Court that the Tribunal has commited gross error in not considering the contributory negligence on the part of the scooterist who has no licence and three persons riding on the scooter. He also raised contention that Tribunal has totally ignored the driver's version as deposed before the Tribunal vide ex. 65. He also submitted that no cross has been made by the claimants of the driver for contributory negligence. He submitted that Ex. 20 written statement filed by the appellant where these contentions are raised by the appella...
Tag this Judgment!District Panchayat Vs. Vasantgauri Wife of Babulal Dave and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR98
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.1. The appellant, District Panchayat, original defendant No. 1 in Regular Civil Suit No. 242 of 1973 assailed the order dated 16-8-1982 passed by the Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1978 reversing the judgment and order passed by learned trial Court and decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff - present respondent No. 1 and declaring that the impugned order passed by the Administrative Officer, Rajkot bearing No. 1747 dated 9-8-1971 was void, inoperative and without jurisdiction and that the plaintiff continued in service of defendant No. 1 at 60% of emoluments instead of full wages.2. Facts in brief deserve to be set out in order to appreciate the controversy.3. The plaintiff, as per his say, was a transferred Government servant to Panchayat on formation of the Panchayat. The plaintiff was working as Primary Teacher at relevant time. The plaintiff proceeded on half day leave on 13-1-1971 and as he was not found in the school, the concerned School ...
Tag this Judgment!Shardaben Shambhuram Devmurari Vs. Mohanbhai Keshavdas Kelaiya and anr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR471
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Hiren Modi for the appellants original-claimants and learned Advocate Mr. H. M. Thakker for respondent No. 2-Insurance Company.2. This appeal is filed by the appellant-Shardaben Shambhuram Devmurari, original claimant for enhacement of award while challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amreli in M.A.C.P. No. 133 of 2004 dated 4th March, 2008 wherein the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum.3. Learned Advocate Mr. Modi for the appellant submitted that the claim petition was filed by claimant for Rs. 3,00,000/- under different head, but Claims Tribunal has calculated amount of compensation which comes to Rs. 3,63,000/- but that was not awarded because the claimant has claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- only, therefore, same amount was awarded though Claims Tribunal calculated amount of Rs. 3,63,000/- for the claimants which amounts to basic...
Tag this Judgment!Kankuben Wd/O Parshottamdas Jordas and 3 ors. Vs. Ramratanbhai Badripr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-27-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Guj16; (2009)1GLR270
M.R. Shah, J.1. Present Appeal from Order is filed by the appellants - original defendant Nos. 2 and defendant Nos. 5 to 7 of Special Civil Suit No. 04 of 2002 challenging the order and decree passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Deesa dated 20th July, 2007 below Exhibit Nos. 623, 637, 626, 638, 645 and 635 in Special Civil Suit No. 04 of 2002.2. Mr. H.M.Parikh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 to 11 herein and defendant Nos. 14 and 15 has raised preliminary objection with respect to maintainability of present Appeal from Order under Order 43 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. As preliminary objection with respect to maintainability of present Appeal from Order is raised, this Court proposes to consider the same first. 3. Few facts are necessary for the purpose of determination of maintainability of present Appeal from Order against impugned judgement, order and decree passed by the learned trial Court:Respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/6 herein - original plaintiffs in...
Tag this Judgment!Dharshi Chakubhai Vaghari Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-27-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR614
Z.K. Saiyed, J.1. The present criminal Appeal has been preferred by the convict appellant- original accused of Sessions Case No. 130 of 1998 challenging the Judgment and order of conviction dated 30.5.2001 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh. By the said Judgment the learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant - accused for life for the offence under Section 460 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P. Code').2. The facts of the prosecution case is that at village Makhiyada of Junagadh District there is one place named 'Bhutiya Bapa Temple'. In the said temple one Purshottam Bapu was residing with his family and doing the work as 'devotee'. Prior to the date of incident Triveniben, wife of Purshottam Bapu went to Rajkot to drop her daughter Nita and at that time Purshottam Bapu was alone at the said place. During the night of 29/30-4-1998, some unknown persons have entered into Bhutiya Bapa's place with an intention to commit theft and murder and at t...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshbhai Narsinhbhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-27-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1166; (2009)2GLR1038
Z.K. Saiyed, J.1. The present appellant -ori. Accused has been charged and tried for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 404, 324, 342 and 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No. 59/2000 2. The facts of the prosecution case is that deceased complainant Hansaben married with Karsanbhai Shivabhai Koli, resident of Surendranagar ten years prior to the incident and due to the kidney problem, her husband died and after the death of her husband, she came to Jamnagar with her son and daughter and was staying with her father Kana Virambhai at Shabarinagar, near Woolen Mill and working at Udhyognagar in Brass-part factory. Due to work, Hansaben came into contact with Shantaben Narshibhai Koli who was a visitory of the factory. Shantaben told her that wife of her son Ramesh has expired and he has two daughters and one son and because she was widow, Shantaben convinced her to marry with her son Ramesh. Prior to the inc...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Dolatray Bhojwani and 19 ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and 6 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-27-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR427
Akil Kureshi, J.1. In the present petition, petitioners have challenged an order dated 1.7.08 passed by the Collector, Vadodara by which the Collector was pleased to suspend the operation of resolution No. 34 passed by the Municipality on 26.6.2006.2. Brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows:The petitioners are councillors of Dabhoi Nagarpalika. Nagarpalika comprises of 36 councillors. Respondent No. 5 herein is the President of the Nagarpalika.Two councillors Shri Dushyantkumar J. Jain and Smt.Shantaben S. Tadvi gave notice to respondent No. 5, President of the Nagarpalika to call a special general meeting to discuss and vote on the motion of no-confidence against the President. Such a notice was signed by 20 other councillors.Pursuant to the notice, respondent No. 5 called a special general meeting of the Nagarpalika on 26.6.08. The agenda of the meeting was circulated on 21.6.08 which contained a single item, viz. for taking a decision on the no confidence motion m...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Prakashbhai Bhagwandas Vs. Central Gujarat Electiricty Company L ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-26-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Guj14
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Ms. Bhaya, learned Counsel appearing for the Electricity Company waives notice of Rule.2. With the consent of the learned advocate appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard.3. The short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioner was having one electric connection for a tube well of 20 HP for the purpose of irrigation. As per the petitioner, it did applied for another connection on 01.06.2006 by paying the requisite fees for registration of Rs. 200/-. Thereafter, the estimate was also prepared and the petitioner deposited the requisite amount of Rs. 9,855/-. As per the petitioner, the another connection was applied for another tube well since in the existing well, where the connection was in existence as per the petitioner, there was no sufficient water. The petitioner accordingly dug the well, but the connection was not granted to the petitioner for 20 HP load. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached to this Court by wa...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Maize Products
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-25-2008
Reported in: 2009(234)ELT431(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The appellant - Revenue has challenged the order dated 4.1.2007 made by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad (the Tribunal), by proposing the following questions:[a] Whether the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is justified in holding that the demand is highly disproportionate to the credit availed on common inputs which could be attributed to goods which have been cleared without payment of duty?[b] Whether the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is justified in accepting the offer of the respondent to reverse the entire credit attributable to the exempted product covered in the nine show cause notices?[c] Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT is justified, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in setting aside the order of the Commissioner confirming the demands in nine Show Cause Notices by not considering the provisions of erstwhile Rule 57AD of Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 6 of CENV...
Tag this Judgment!Kiran Fashions Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-25-2008
Reported in: 2009[13]STR502
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This appeal has been preferred challenging order dated 26-6-2006 made by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, at Ahmedabad (the Tribunal) dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant herein. The appellant has proposed the following questions stated to be substantial questions of law.(1) Whether the adjudicating authorities could have ignored evidence of comparative invoicing as available under Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962 where they allowed similar exports at same or higher price?(2) Whether the customs and adjudicating authorities could have alleged over invoicing in absence of any evidence on record?(3) Whether the Customs and adjudicating authorities could have differed from the Government fixed cut off price as fixed by the AEPC?(4) Whether retracted statements could be relied upon as the only piece of evidence at all?(5) If so whether mere for not showing service upon customs could the affirmation and notarization, be, ignored...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »