Gujarat Court October 2013 Judgments
Sumanbhai Sukhabhai Ahir Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-24-2013
J.B. Pardiwala, J. This Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of an applicant of a Special Civil Application No.11928 of 2000 and is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th January 2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, by which His Lordship disposed off the petition confirming the interim order which was passed in the petition dated 3rd May 2001. However, since the interim order enured to the benefit of the petitioner only from 1st January 2001, the consequential benefits which were ordered to be paid by the learned Single Judge would also be counted from 3rd May 2001, whereas in the main writ-application, the petitioner prayed for regularization of his service from the date of his appointment i.e. from 3rd August 1993. It is in such circumstances that although the learned Single Judge made rule absolute, yet, in substance the main prayer for regularization in service from 1993 could not be said to have been granted by the learned Sing...
Tag this Judgment!Kanjibhai Godadbhai Chaudhary Vs. Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-24-2013
Common Oral Judgment: 1. Challenge made in both these petitions is against the order dated 18.5.2011 passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal in Appeal No.323 of 2008. 2. Appeal No.323 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.18734 of 2011 ('the employee' for convenience) against the order dated 25.9.2008 of his dismissal from service. 3. The case put up by the employee in his appeal was that he was serving as Junior Pharmacist in the Community Health Center, Lanva from 1988 to 1992. He was served with first show cause notice dated 4.9.1992 for financial irregularity in purchase and distribution of the medicines for the hospital and for tampering with the accounts. He submitted his reply on 9.11.1992, which was not accepted and he was then served with charge-sheet dated 15.9.1993. 4. The employee was simultaneously prosecuted for offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. He was arrested in connection with the said offen...
Tag this Judgment!Mangabhai Jadavbhai Makwana Vs. Tekchand Chhaganlal Shah and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-10-2013
Cav Judgement 1. Challenge in both these appeal from order preferred under Order 43 Rule 1(r) read with section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is the order dated 24.9.2012 passed in Civil Suit Nos.79/2011 and 80/2011 respectively passed below Exh5, whereby the learned trial Judge rejected injunction application pending the suit for restraining the defendants, their servants, agents from transferring, selling, gifting, renting or creating third party right or handing over physical possession to anyone over the suit land, more particularly, described in the plaint situated at village Sarbhod, Tal: Bardoli, Dist: Surat admeasuring 7487 sq mtr and 15783 sq mtr respectively. 2. Since the dispute relates to the sale agreement dated 12.12.2009 entered into between the purchaser and seller of the suit land stipulates identical terms and conditions governing sale transaction except price of the suit land, they are hereby disposed of by this common judgment so as to avoid repetition of...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Vidhyut Board and Another Vs. Mahavirsinh Tapubha Gohil and An ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-03-2013
Oral Order 1. In both these petitions, challenge is made to the award of the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) Case No.18 of 1998 dated 19.12.2012 whereby the Reference is partly allowed and compensation of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded in favour of the workman. 2. The employer has challenged the said award by preferring Special Civil Application No.2282 of 2013 contending that going by the reasoning recorded by the Labour Court itself, even the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- could not have been granted. The workman has filed Special Civil Application No.8399 of 2013 contending that since compensation of Rs. 25,000/- is granted, even according to Labour Court, illegality was found in discontinuing services of the workman and therefore instead of compensation of Rs.25,000/-, reinstatement ought to have been granted. 3. Heard learned advocates. Rule, in Special Civil Application No.2282 of 2013. Mr. Rathod, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of Respondent No.1- workman. 4...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›