Gujarat Court March 2012 Judgments
Surendranagar District Panchayat Vs. Valiben Haribhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the common judgment and award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Surendranagar dated 08.02.2000 in Reference (LCS) Nos.154/1991, 266/1991 and 23/1992. It being a common judgment and award, both these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Special Civil Application No.6050/2001 relates to Reference (LCS) No.23/1992 and Special Civil Application No.6051/2001 relates to Reference (LCS) No.154/1991. 3. The facts that can be pointed out from the record of the petitions are summarized as under: 3.1 The respondents-workmen claimed that they were working as permanent workmen since 10 years and 8 years respectively with the petitioner and were given work of construction of road. It is the case of the respondents-workmen that the petitioner used to pay minimum wages. It is contended that after having worked for a long period, the respondents-workmen were terminated from the services on 0...
Tag this Judgment!Maheshkumar Chandubhai Shah and Others Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-23-2012
1. Leave to amend. 2. The applicants-original accused of Criminal Case No.1283 of 2010, who are convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mahudha on 26.4.2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887. Against the said order Criminal Appeal being Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2011 was filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad. The learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad, by his judgment and order dated 19.03.2012 confirmed the order passed by the learned JMFC in Criminal Case No.1283 of 2010. 3. Heard Mr.R.J.Dholakia, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr.H.L.Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 4. Mr.Dholakia has submitted that the game is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the case of gabling gain and loss is required to be proved. The applicants are local residents and they are convicted by the learned Judge only for the period of one month. He has, there...
Tag this Judgment!Diviyang Punjalal Patni Vs. Union of India Through Additional Secretar ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-2012
1. This petition challenges enforcement, implementation and execution of the order of detention prepared and sought to be served on the petitioner by the respondent No.3 under Sec.3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980( hereinafter referred to as 'PBM Act' for short). 2. The brief facts as arising from the petition are that an FIR being C.R.No.II-72 of 2011 was registered with Karelibaug Police Station, Vadodara, against the petitioner and his tenant, one Shaikh Ahmed Hussain, for the offences punishable under Secs.7 and 3 of the Essential Commodities Act in pursuance of a search at the godown No.21 of the petitioner by Supply Inspector, Baroda on 8-4-2011 contending that petitioner is the owner of godown from where goods of 28,138 of controlled articles were stocked by the tenant Shaikh Ahmed Hussain. Said tenant was arrested and was released on bail by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner on coming to know that his name...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Koli Bhayabhai Rajsibhai and Ot ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-19-2012
1. This First Appeal is at the instance of the Insurance Company and is directed against an Award dated April 23, 1993, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Junagadh, [“Tribunal”] in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 193 of 1986, by which the Tribunal disposed of the said application for compensation by awarding a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the application till deposit with proportionate costs. 2. Being dissatisfied, the insurer of the offending vehicle has come up with the present Appeal. 3. There is no dispute from the evidence on record that on November 3, 1985, while the victim was traveling on the motorcycle as a pillion rider, due to the negligence on the part of the motorcycle driver, an accident occurred. In the said accident, no other “motor vehicle” within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act was involved. It appears from the materials on record that the owner of the said motorcycle...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Pollution Control Board Thro J.V. Pandya Vs. State of Gujarat ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-19-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The endorsement on the board shows that rule is unserved qua respondents No.2 to 6. Mr. Sunil Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner has invited attention to the affidavit of service of notice dated 16th March, 2012 filed by one Shri Ranjitsinh Bhati, Assistant Law Officer of the petitioner Board wherein it has been stated that after receipt of notice of service, he had personally gone to the office of Ganesh Radiators Pvt. Ltd. situated at Shankarbhai Patel Industrial Estate at Manjusar, taluka Savli, district Vadodara on 13th March, 2012 and it was found that Ganesh Radiators Pvt. Ltd. has closed down the unit since long; that he also tried to contact the Directors of Ganesh Radiators but has come to know that they had left India since long; that he also visited the house of the Director but no one was residing there since long. Under the circumstances, the notice could not be served upon the respondents. It was accordingly submitted that it is not possible to tr...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Gai Prop. of a S Enterprise Vs. Micro Inks Limited Formerly Kno ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present First Appeal has been filed by the Appellant – Original Defendant under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order rendered by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Valsad, Camp at Vapi in Special Civil Suit No.78 of 2007 dated 22.2.2011 on the grounds stated in the memo of Appeal. 2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Mehul Shah appearing with learned Advocate Mr. P.M.Dave for the Appellant as well as learned Advocate Mr. Hriday Buch for the Respondent. 3. After arguing the matter for some time and in view of the contentions raised by learned Advocates appearing for the parties with regard to the jurisdiction and also considering the peculiar facts, which have been stated that the Advocate for the Appellant could not remain present, and the stage of cross-examination was closed, the interest of justice would be served if the matter is remanded back for deciding afresh. 4. Therefore, without entering into the meri...
Tag this Judgment!Rekhaben M Tuvar Vs. State of Gujarat Thro Secretary and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This petition challenges enforcement, implementation and execution of the order of detention prepared and sought to be served on the petitioner by the respondent No.2 under Sec.3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PASA' for short). 2. It may be noted that during the pendency of this petition, detention order has been passed by the respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Rajkot City, on 28-12-2011 against the petitioner. 3. The brief facts as arising from the petition are that three Criminal Cases being C.R.No.I-145 of 2010 dated 23-10-2010 for the offences punishable under Secs.406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34 and 114 of IPC, C.R.No.I-140 of 2011 dated 25-6-2011 for the offences punishable under Secs.406, 420, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC and C.R.No.I-29 of 2011 dated 15-4-2011 for the offences punishable under Secs.447, 200, 385, 406, 420, 423, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC were registered against...
Tag this Judgment!Chidanand Ashram (Swamiji Vadi) Vs. Mafatlal Fatechand Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
1. Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent of the parties, we have taken up the same for final disposal at the admission stage. We have heard Mr.Ravish Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms.K.J.Brahmbhatt, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.2.2011 passed in Special Civil Application No.13531 of 2009 filed by the appellant which has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has a remedy of filing a Second Appeal and writ petition was not maintainable.3. Brief facts are that the appellant-plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.26 of 2008 before Principal Civil Judge, Borsad, for permanent injunction. The respondent-defendant filed an application in the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was not maintainable. The trial court rejected the application for reje...
Tag this Judgment!Bipinbhai Vishveshvar Mishra Vs. Ahmedabad Police Commissioner and Oth ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-13-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT The petitioner has been detained under the provisions of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1985') by the order dated 02.11.2011 passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City, and he has been declared as bootlegger. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the State. Also perused the record. From the grounds of detention, it appears that one offence being Ghatlodia Police Station Prohibition C.R.No.5055 of 2011 under the Prohibition Act have been registered against the detenu, wherein it is alleged that a total quantity of 35 bottles of foreignh of country made liquor was found from the possession of the detenu. On the basis of registration of this case, the detaining authority held that the present detenu was carrying on activities of selling country made liquor which is harmful to the health of the public. It is held by the detaining authority that as the detenu is indulged in illeg...
Tag this Judgment!Mansa Synthetic Pvt, Ltd and Others Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
1. By way of this writ-petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ- petitioner has prayed for declaration that the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are ultravires the Constitution of India and has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated January 30, 2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Surat in exercise of powers under Section 14 of the Act. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition can be summarised as under : “2.1 The petitioner No.1 is a private limited company and the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are its Directors. The petitioners availed of loan facility from respondent No.2-Bank and as they failed to repay the loan amount, they were declared as defaulters. As the petitioners defaulted in repayment of the loan amount, the Bank decided to proceed against them under the Act...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »