Gujarat Court January 2013 Judgments
Gujarat Microwax Ltd Vs. Chief Engineer Uttar Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
Oral Judgment: The petitioner by this petition has prayed for appropriate writ to quash and set aside the order dated 5.4.2004 passed by the Appellate Committee and copy whereof is produced at Annexure-O; whereby, the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed and the supplementary bill is confirmed of Rs.17,42,344/-. Short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioner is private limited company having its factory situated at Survey No.291/2 and 2, Village: Nandasan, Taluka: Kadi, District: Mehsana and the petitioner is having contracted load of H.T. connection of 325 KVA. As per the petitioner, in the very compound of the petitioner, a portion of it, for the purpose of factory, has been given on lease basis which is an another shed to M/s.Shaili Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (herein after referred to as the Tenant Company) and the area leased out to said company is ad-measuring 6076.75 Sq.Mtrs. with an annual rent of Rs.5,000/-. The Tenant Company has taken its separate connection of 125 ...
Tag this Judgment!Hemaben Sanjeevkumar Kanodiya Vs. Dr. D.N. Nanavati and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
Oral Common Judgment: How far the Doctor can be held liable for criminal action in case wherein one scissor was left in the abdominal area of the patient during the course of surgery/treatment ? 2. The facts giving rise to the above question are thus: The complainant, who was pregnant, had delivered a child on 14.5.1999. It was cesarean operation. The operation was carried out at Anand Hospital, Ankleshwar, which is said to be run by Doctor Family Dr. Mahendrabhai Panchal (who is hereinafter referred to as A/1) and Dr. Rekhaben his wife (who is hereinafter referred to as A/2). Their Hospital is situated at Ankleshwar. After delivery, she was discharged from the hospital on 22.5.1999. Thereafter, she had said to have developed pain in her abdominal area. After consultation with the doctor, complainants sonography was carried out on 23.6.1999. X-ray was also carried out by Dr. Nanavati (A/3). It is the say of the complainant that in sonography report though scissor was found by Dr. Nan...
Tag this Judgment!Amarshibhai @ Amrabhai Alabhaisondharva Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
1. This is yet another case under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, but the present case is one of those few cases wherein at the end of the trial, accused came to be convicted for the said offences. 2. It is the say of the prosecution that victim was aged 15 years plus and therefore, she was minor. About the incident, story is same, - as in all other such cases barring the change in the name of parties and the name of places of alleged occurrence. But, same story did weigh with the Court and accused came to be convicted, hence, few brief facts may be referred to in order to appreciate properly the case of the parties. That victims family resides at village Manipur; one Janiben is their neighbourer; the accused is a brother of Janiben; the accused is not resident of village Manipur, however, he has visited couple of times prior to the incident his sisters house; at that times, the victim and accused had met; In fact, the accused had visited the house of the victim to ha...
Tag this Judgment!Universal Auto Link Through Its Partner Vs. State of Gujarat and Anoth ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioner is a automobile leader and also dealing with the distribution and retrofitting Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) kits in motor vehicles. This petition is preferred for issuance of writ of mandamus, certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to restrain the respondent No.2 from granting permission for appointment of the petitioner as distributor/retrofitter of LPG kits and for instructions to all Transport Authorities (registering authorities) to accept the vehicles for alteration as per the Cause F, Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 115 C of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (Rules, for short). 2. The rule was issued on 27.9.2004 with specific direction to the respondents to file reply and permitting the petitioner to move the Court for expediting the hearing of the matter, may be because of the reason that interim relief prayed in paragraph 20(D) was not granted on that day. The record shows that even after 8 years, the respondents have not filed repl...
Tag this Judgment!Prakashchandra Chandrakant Aariwala Vs. Chief Engineer (V.V.) DakshIn ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner for appropriate writ to quash and set aside the order of the appellate committee dated 26.8.2003/15.5.2003, whereby the supplementary bill is modified to Rs.1,43,784.60. A copy of the appellate committees order is produced at Annexure-III with the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent. 2. The short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner is having electricity connection granted by the respondent, the then Board, now the Electricity Company. On 20.11.2002, the checking was made and at that time, it was found that everything was in order, except that the connected load was 27.87 HP against sanctioned load of 20 HP. Another pertinent aspect is that in Clause No.10 of the said checking sheet, it was mentioned that new MM Box seals bearing No.12023090 and paper seals are applied. Since there was more contracted load of 7.87, a supplementary bill was issued for which the petitioner has filed...
Tag this Judgment!Kandoi Chimanlal Brijlal and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. K.B.Pujara with Mr.H.B.Singh and Mr. Biren A.Vaishnav, learned advocates for the petitioners, Mr. Rasesh Rindani learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Finance Department, Education Department, Director of Primary Education and District Education Officer, Mr.H.S.Munshaw, Ms. R.V.Acharya and Mr.Premal Joshi, learned advocates for respective District Primary Education officers of Mehsana, Bhavnagar, and Amreli Districts and Administrative Officers of respective Municipal School Boards of said districts. At the request of learned advocate for petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 8576 of 2008, the respondent no. 7 in the said petition is deleted. Since, in all these petitions, the grievance is identical and the issue for adjudication is the same, all these petitions are heard, considered and decided by this common judgment and order. All learned advocates requested that since all relevant material is on the record of SCA No. 10142 of 200...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Kayamali Hasimbhai Electricwala and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is filed by original defendant No.1 State of Gujarat against whom as well as against respondent No.2, respondent no.1 herein original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 67 of 1995 for declaration that the plaintiff is the Indian Citizen and continued to be the Indian Citizen until the defendants get decision against the plaintiff under section 9(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act (herein after referred to as the Act) and also praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from deporting the plaintiff till the defendants get such decision from the Central Government under section 9(2) of the Act. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was born in Godhra, District Panchmahals on 25.4.1945 and his parents were also born in Godhra. It is averred that on 24.4.1950, the plaintiff was admitted in Saifiya Madaresa and studied there till 5th standard and thereafter, was admitted in Iqbal Union High School on 20.6.1956 and passed SSC E...
Tag this Judgment!Shantiniketan Education Trust and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Othe ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-15-2013
1.0. As common question of law and facts arise in both these Letters Patent Appeals, there are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2.0. Both these Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent have been preferred by the respective appellants herein-original petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 2850 of 2004 and Special Civil Application No.15312 of 2003 challenging the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29.7.2004 passed in aforesaid Special Civil Applications, by which the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the Special Civil Applications and declared that a person or group of persons belonging genuinely to the group of Hindi linguistic can claim status as linguistic minority in Gujarat State, however it will be for the concerned authority of the State Government to examine the facts of each institution keeping in view the observations made in the said judgment and to ascertain as to whether such person...
Tag this Judgment!Hajinural Hasan Master Charitable Trust Vs. State of Gujarat and Other ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-15-2013
1.0. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of Letters Patent Appeals they are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2.0. All these Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are arising out of the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 09.10.2003 passed in Special Civil Application No.12049 of 2001 and other allied matters, by which, the learned Single Judge has negatived the challenge to the Government Resolution dated 21.5.1994 providing for absorption of teaching and non teaching staff by minority institutions declared surplus from other minority institutions and also held that Government Resolution of 1996 providing for addition of clause 64.3 in the Grant in Aid Code would be applicable to aided minority institutions by observing and holding that as the minority institutions are getting grant in aid from the Government they are bound by the same and bound to absorb teaching and non teaching staff ...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Shah Vs. State Bank of India and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
1. Heard Mr.N.M.Kapadia, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Pranav G. Desai, learned counsel for the respondent Bank. 2. Challenge is made in this petition to the final decision of the disciplinary authority of imposing major penalty of removal, on the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondent Bank. The prayer in the petition reads as under: ... YOUR LORDSHIP be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, direction and order and further be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned inquiry and decision of the respondent to impose major penalty on the petitioner at the conclusion of the said inquiry proceedings... The disciplinary proceedings in question has ultimately culminated in punishment of removal of the petitioner from the service of the Bank vide order dated 01.06.1984. There is controversy with regard to service of that order as well, which is discussed in this judgment subsequently, but the punishme...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »