Gujarat Court December 2013 Judgments
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Firoze M. Mogal and Anoth ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-26-2013
J.B. Pardiwala, R. Tripathi, Jayant Patel, M.R. Shah and A.G. Uraizee, JJ. This batch of Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been placed before this Special Bench pursuant to the order passed by the Honble the Chief Justice on a reference made by a Division Bench first in point of time on 13th August 2013 while hearing a Letters Patent Appeal No.596 of 2008 arising from a judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.408 of 1993. It appears that the need to refer the matter to a Larger Bench necessitated since the Referring Bench noticed a conflict between the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Revaben Wd/o Ambalal Motibhai, and others v. Vinubhai Purshottambhai Patel and others, reported in 2013(1) GLH 440, and a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dilavarsinhsinh Khodubha Jadeja v. The State of Gujarat and others, reported in 1995(1) GLH 58. In such circumstances referred to ab...
Tag this Judgment!Nayan @ Appu Sureshchandra Jariwala Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-24-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.G. Uraizee, J.) 1. We have heard learned counsel, Mr Gajendra Baghel for the appellant and Mr Harsheel Shukla, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. Admitted. Mr Shukla, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of admission. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal today itself. 2. The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 30th August 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.3964 of 2013 whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant to quash the detention order under the Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (œPASA?, for short) at pre execution stage. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the detention order has been passed, yet the same has not been served upon the detenu. 3. The brief facts of the present appeal are that the appellant filed writ petition to quash th...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendrasinh Mangalsinh Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-24-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.G. Uraizee, J.) 1. We have heard learned counsel, Mr Ashish Dagli for the appellant and Mr Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. Admitted. Mr Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of admission. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal today itself. 2. The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 15th October 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.3045 of 2011 whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant to quash the detention order under the Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (œPASA?, for short) at pre execution stage. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the detention order has been passed, yet the same has not been served upon the detenu. 3. The brief facts of the present appeal are that the appellant filed writ petition to quash the d...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod@ Vijay Murlidhar Udhwani Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-24-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.G. Uraizee, J.) 1. We have heard learned counsel, Mr Mohd. Shafi Shaikh for the appellant and Mr N.J. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. Admitted. Mr N.J. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of admission. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal today itself. 2. The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 11th December 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.15966 of 2013 whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant to quash the detention order under the Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (œPASA?, for short) at pre execution stage. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that from the averments made in paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent before the learned Single Judge it clearly appears that the detention order is passed against the...
Tag this Judgment!Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd and Another Vs. Devabhai Memabhai Myatra
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-23-2013
Vijay Manohar Sahai, J: 1. We have heard Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Nirav Sanghvi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Ashish M. Dagli for the respondent. 2. By the present Intra-Court Letters Patent Appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment dated 24.9.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.11180 of 2010 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants “ original petitioners. 3. The appellants filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge being aggrieved by the order dated 28.4.2010 passed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Bhuj “ Kutch in Complaint Application No.145 of 2008. The main contention of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum / Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission do not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints filed by the consumers under the provisions of the Consume...
Tag this Judgment!Jivanbhai Z. Ghanghar Vs. Director General Sports Authority of Gujarat ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-2013
J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. This appeal under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of an unsuccessful applicant of a Special Civil Application and is directed against the judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 24/9/2013 by which His Lordship rejected the writ application. 2. It appears from the materials on record that the appellant herein was appointed on 16/11/1987 by the Sports Authority of Gujarat as a Coach. Between 1989 and 1994 the appellant worked at the Regional Coach Center under the Senior Coach as an Athletic Coach at Ahmedabad. Between 1994 and 1999 the appellant worked as an Athletic Coach under the Senior Coach at Nadiad Coaching Center of the respondent authorities. Between 1999 and 2002 the appellant worked as an Athletic Coach under the Senior Coach at District Patan. Between 2002 and June, 2011 he worked as a Coach at Khokhara Coaching Center. Between June, 2011 and till the date of his superannuation i.e. 24th September, 2013...
Tag this Judgment!Natwarlal Garbaddas Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-2013
CAV Judgment Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of an unsuccessful writ-petitioner and is directed against an order dated 12th June 2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6048 of 2002 by which His Lordship dismissed the Special Civil Application filed by the appellant in which he challenged the order dated 10th May 2002 passed by the respondent No.1 refusing to sanction pension to him. 2. Being dissatisfied, the writ-petitioner has come up with the present appeal. 3. The case made out by the appellant in the Special Civil Application was as follows:- [a]. The petitioner retired as a Lecturer from the respondent No.2-College. The respondent No.3 “ the Principal of the College had not forwarded his pension-option-form submitted by him on 25th August 1985 and for not forwarding the said option-form by the Principal of the College, the prayer of the petitioner f...
Tag this Judgment!Satishkumar Ramanbhai Patel and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-2013
CAV Judgement Bhaskar Bhattacharya, C.J.- 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is at the instance of the unsuccessful writ-petitioners and is directed against an order dated 25th November 2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship dismissed the Special Civil Application filed by the appellants. 2. Being dissatisfied, the writ petitioners have come up with the present appeal. 3. In the Special Civil Application out of which the present Letters Patent Appeal arises, the petitioners made the following prayer: œ8(B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the concerned respondent authorities to pass appropriate order for granting relaxation in respect of criterion of upper age limit prescribed through the advertisement annexed as Annexure- œG? hereto for giving appointment to the post of Kaushalya Sahayak / Supervisory Instructor and furthttp://in.yahoo.com/her be pleased to direct the concerned responden...
Tag this Judgment!Prajapati Vasrambhai Devsibhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-2013
CAV Judgment Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is at the instance of an unsuccessful writ-petitioner and is directed against an order dated 30th May 2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 9061 of 2013 by which His Lordship dismissed Special Civil Application filed by the present appellant wherein he challenged the selection of the respondent No.6 to the post of Legal Officer for the District of Banaskantha. 2. Being dissatisfied, the writ-petitioner has come up with the present appeal. 3. There is no dispute that in the process of selection, the appellant, along with the respondent No.6 and some other candidates appeared at the interview for the post concerned and the name of the appellant figured at Sl. No. 2 of the merit list whereas the name of the respondent No.6 figured at the top. Consequently, the respondent No.6 was given the appointment. 4. According to the appellant, in the advertisement for the post concerne...
Tag this Judgment!R.R. Tiwari Vs. Director of Social Defence, Gujarat State and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-2013
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is at the instance of an unsuccessful writ-petitioner and is directed against order dated 6th February 2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 3285 of 1985 thereby disposing of the same by holding that the petitioner should not be entitled to claim any retrial benefit from the Government except the amount like his contribution, if any, towards General Provident Fund and Group Insurance Scheme. 2. Being dissatisfied, the writ-petitioner has come up with the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. In the Special Civil Application out of which the present Letters Patent Appeal arises, the petitioner had made the following prayers in paragraph 21 of the writ-application: œ21. The petitioner, therefore, prays that: (A). YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the dec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »