Gujarat Court June 2011 Judgments
Mahendrabhai P. Prajapati Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
1. Rule. Mr.Maulik G.Nanavati, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1. Mr.Rajesh Chauhan, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondents Nos.2 and 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided, today. 2. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interalia, with a prayer to regularize his services. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner was permitted to amend the petition. As per the amended prayer, the petitioner has challenged the `oral' termination of his services, on 12.10.2010. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as stated in the petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Clerk in the Taluka Panchayat, Nasvadi, on 01.09.1997. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that h...
Tag this Judgment!Shankarbhai Gamajibhai Koli and ors. Vs. Mulabhai Amdarsinh Koli and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
1. The present appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. arises out of the judgment and order dated 23rd October 2008 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dahod (hereinafter referred to as the 'lower Appellate Court') in Regular Civil Appeal No.52 of 2006, whereby the judgment and decree dated 29th August 2006 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Devgadh Baria (hereinafter referred to as the 'lower Court') in Regular Civil Suit No.98 of 1998 was confirmed. 2. At the outset, it is required to be stated that though the Second Appeal was filed as back as in March 2009, the same was adjourned from time to time for about 41 times at the requests made by the learned advocates for the parties, and remained pending at the stage of admission for such a long time. It is further required to be noted that today, during the course of hearing, it was found by the Court that the appellants (original defendants) had not stated the substantial questions of law in the...
Tag this Judgment!Visnhubhai Naranbhai Patel and ors. Vs. Sureshkumar Kundanlal Lalchand ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
1. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 28/10/2011 below Exh. 17 in Special Civil Suit No. 77/2009 passed by the learned Second Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) Mirzapur by which the learned trial Court has allowed the said application submitted by the original defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and has dismissed Special Civil Suit No. 77/2009 preferred by the petitioners-original plaintiffs. 2. Ms. Trusha Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents-original defendants has raised a preliminary objection with respect to entertainability and maintainability of the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order by submitting that against the impugned order regular Civil Appeal will be maintainable under Order 41 o...
Tag this Judgment!Alabhai Rajde Batiya and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
1. These petitions arise in similar factual background. They were therefore heard together and being disposed of by this common judgement. 2. Special Civil Application No.5386/2008 has been filed by residents of village Zarpara, Taluka Mundra, District Kutch. In this petition filed in the nature of PIL, petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside orders passed by respondent No.1 and 2 i.e. the State and the Collector of the District Kutch, by virtue of which certain lands allotted to Village Panchayat for the purpose of Gauchar(grazing) came to be resumed by the Sate and ultimately came to be allotted to respondent no.3 for creation of Mundra Special Economic Zone (“Mundra SEZ” for short).Principal objection of the petitioners to such orders passed by the State authorities is that the land earmarked for the purpose of Gauchar in the village is not adequate looking to the cattle population and the ratio fixed by the State Government to be maintained for such purpo...
Tag this Judgment!R. M. Patel Agriculture Officer Vs. Director of Campus Gujarat Agricul ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
1. The petitioner was appointed as Agriculture Officer by the Gujarat Agricultural University, Dantiwada Campus, Banaskantha in the year 1989. It appears that after his appointment as an Agriculture Officer, he requested the University for allotment of a quarter as per the rules prescribing the mode and manner of allotment. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1995, an order was passed allotting a quarter to the petitioner. However, even after the decision was taken to allot the quarter to the petitioner, actual allotment was not effected. Therefore, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.8008/2000. This petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 19th October 2000 by the learned Single Judge, which reads as under:- “If we go by the averments made by the petitioner in para-6 of the Special Civil Application which have not been controverted by the respondents in reply affidavit, the defence given for non-allotment of quarter to the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat and ors. Vs. Dhanubhai Velubha Jadeja
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
1. Counsel for the parties agree that this appeal can be disposed of at the admission stage without calling for affidavit-in-reply. In view of the statement made by both the counsel for the parties, we have taken up this appeal at the admission stage itself for final disposal. 2. We have heard Mr. N. J. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr. Kalpesh N. Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. This Intra-Court appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 26.07.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.4892 of 1998. The learned Single Judge in paragraph 2 of his judgment has observed that the petitioner has joined his service as daily wager at Karaghogha Irrigation Project on 21.01.1988. The direction has been issued by the learned Single Judge to the respondents to consider the claim of the respondent / petitioner for regularizing his service. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has urged that before t...
Tag this Judgment!Arab Abdulla Sulemanbhai Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
1. We have heard Mr Sunil L Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Sejal K Mandavia, learned counsel for the respondents. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.1.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short, "the Tribunal") in Review Application No.31/2007 in O.A. No.98/2007 with M.A No.462 of 2007. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner joined the services of the Central Excise department on 17.6.1974 as Sepoy. As per the Recruitment Rules, the petitioner appeared in the departmental examination for Group 'D' post held in July 1980. He failed to clear the typing test held on 21.1.1981.Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Lower Division Clerk on 14.11.1994 i.e. after 20 years. Again he was promoted to the next higher post of Tax Assistant in the year 2003. Pursuant to the new Rules issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, vide order No. 162/2006 dated 8.11.2006, the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Government and ors. Vs. Husen Kha Ibrahimkha
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners-appellants-original defendants have prayed for an appropriate order to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Junagadh dated 24.9.2007 passed below Exh.15 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 129 of 2006 by which the leaned Appellate Court has dismissed the said application submitted by the petitioners -appellants to condone the delay of approximately two years in preferring the appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court passed in Regular Civil Suit No.300 of 1998. 2. Shri Trimizi, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent. Shri Trimizi, learned advocate for the respondent herein-original plaintiff does not invite any further reason order while allowing the present Special Civil Application and condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. However, he has requested to make suitable observation that learned Appel...
Tag this Judgment!Farukbhai Allarakhabhai Miyana Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
1. By way of present appeal, filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 08th September, 2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, in Sessions Case No.22 of 2009, whereby the learned Judge has convicted the appellant-accused under Sections 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 13th December, 2008 at about 11.30 hours the appellant-original accused No.1 had entered into the complainant's house armed with dharia and knife. When the complainant asked the complainant about his identity, the appellant replied that he has some work with her husband. Therefore, the complainant opened the door. When the complainant seen the appellant armed with dharia and knife, she immediately closed the door. Thereafter, the appellant started knocking the door forcibly and also had given a dharia blow on the door. It is the case of...
Tag this Judgment!Kailasben and ors. Vs. Kesubhai Shankar Vankar and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
1. Present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred by the appellants-original claimants challenging the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Nadiad dated 12.1.1998 passed in MACP No.657 of 1984 in so far as not awarding full claim as prayed for as well as in denying the interest on the amount awarded for the period from 28.7.1988 to 26.11.1997. 2. Shri Y.F. Mehta, learned advocate for the appellants has stated at the bar that the appellants are restricting the present appeal with respect to denying the interest on the amount awarded by the Tribunal for the period from 28.7.1988 to 26.11.1997. It is submitted by Shri Mehta, learned advocate for the appellants that as such there was no delay on the part of the appellants at all. It is submitted that claim petition came to be dismissed for non prosecution on 28.7.1988 and immediately thereafter in the year 1989 the application was submitted to restore ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »