Skip to content

Gujarat Court December 2013 Judgments

Browse smarter

Open an 18-section brief on any judgment

Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.

  • AI Brief & Ask
  • Semantic AI Search
  • Devil's Bench

Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.

Dec 18 2013

Ushaben Kishorebhai Sanghvi Vs. State of Gujarat and Others

Court: Gujarat

Decided on: Dec-18-2013

Oral Judgment 1. On 12.12.2013, the Court passed the following order: œArguments on merits are over. Defer for order, as Ms. Archana R. Acharya, learned advocate for the petitioner has requested for time upto 16th December, 2013. Time is granted. S.O to 16th December, 2013.? Today, Ms. Acharya, learned advocate submitted that as the submissions have already been made, the Court may pass appropriate order. 2. The petitioner, who happened to be distributor of the fourth respondent of liquefied petroleum gas in the cylinders, has approached this Court by way of this petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with following relief: œ(A) to quash and set aside the order No. Anapuni/Gas/Petrol/Kha.Ra./Appeal/11/2000 dated 7.12.2000 of the second respondent and allow the said Appeal. (B) to quash and set aside the Order No. Anapuni/Gas/Petrol/Kha.Ra/Order/9/2000 dated 7.6.2000 and No. Anapuni/Gas/Petrol/Kha.Ra./Order/10/2000 dtd 7.6.2000 of the thir...


Dec 18 2013

Ajay Vs. State of Gujarat and Others

Court: Gujarat

Decided on: Dec-18-2013

Oral Judgment 1. Perused the petition, materials supplied to the detenu, detention order and heard learned advocate Ms.S.G. Patel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. Mr.L.B. Dabhi for the respondent-State. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of detention dated 5.8.2013 passed by the respondent authority in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short the Act) by detaining the detenue as a bootlegger as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. 3. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground that two offences registered against the detenu before the concerned police station vide III C.R. Nos.807 of 2012 and 539 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 66(1)(b), 65(a)(e), 116(1)(c), 98, 99 and 81 and 66(1)(b), 65(a)(e), 116(1)(c) of Prohibition Act res...


Dec 13 2013

Gujarat Public Service Commission Vs. Dhanjibhai Savjibhai Maru and An ...

Court: Gujarat

Decided on: Dec-13-2013

CAV Judgement Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. 1. These two Letters Patent Appeals were heard together as the question involved in both the appeals was similar. 2. Letters Patent Appeal No. 550 is at the instance of Gujarat Public Service Commission, [GPSC hereafter], and is directed against judgment dated 3rd October 2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 7904 of 2000 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ-petition by setting aside the communication dated 17th February 1998 issued by the appellant by which the candidature of the writ-petitioner for being considered for appointment to the cadre of Gujarat Education Services Class-II (Administrative Branch) was refused, with a direction upon the appellant GPSC to call for interview for being considered for appointment to the above cadre pursuant to advertisement dated 3rd October 1995 published in newspaper on 1st November 1995. 2.2 The other appeal being LPA No. 624 of 2013 is also at t...


Dec 13 2013

Mahila Utkarsh Trust Through Its President and Others Vs. Union of Ind ...

Court: Gujarat

Decided on: Dec-13-2013

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ. 1. All these three Special Civil Applications were taken up and heard together as a common question of law is involved in all these matters, viz. whether Section 66(1) (b) of the Factories Act, 1948 [the Act hereafter] and it s proviso are ultra vires the Constitution of India being violative of Articles 14, 15, 16, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. 1.1 In Special Civil Application No. 11533 of 2013, an additional, alternative prayer has been made for a direction upon the State-respondent to issue appropriate notification as provided in the proviso to sub-section (b) of Section 66(1) of the Act enabling the petitioners to permit / employ women employees to work up to 10.00 p.m. 2. The facts stated in Special Civil Application No. 2984 of 2012 may be summarized thus: 2.1 The petitioner is a Public Charitable Trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and is engaged in the activity of upliftment of women and is active...


Dec 12 2013

Piyush Salt and Chem Works Through Partner Vs. DakshIn Gujarat Vij Co ...

Court: Gujarat

Decided on: Dec-12-2013

1. This is a petition by the petitioner, a registered partnership Firm, challenging the order of the Appellate Committee, GEB, Dated: 06.04.2004, whereby, it maintained the action of respondent of issuing supplementary bill to it to the extent of Rs.4,01,826.57/-, after deducting the units counted for off-season / non-working period, which comes to about three months. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-Firm is engaged in the business of manufacturing salt. For the aforesaid purpose, the petitioner has obtained an electricity connection from the respondent electricity company, which was earlier known as GEB, with Consumer No. 08882/00451/1 LTP-1. The meter installed at the premises of the petitioner-Firm came to be changed by the respondent on 11.09.2003 and it came to be inspected for the first time, after the change of meter, on 10.12.2003. Then, on 11.12.20013 again, an inspection of the meter was carried out and it was found that the petitioner-Firm was indulging...


Dec 12 2013

State of Gujarat Vs. Mukeshbhai Panchabhai Patel Dobariya

Court: Gujarat

Decided on: Dec-12-2013

Oral Judgment: (K.S. Jhaveri, J.) 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-State has challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No.33 of 2007 dated 23.12.2009, whereby, the original accused-respondent herein, has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 304 part-I of the Indian Penal Code (for short, œthe IPC?) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, the original accused shall undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. The original accused has been given the benefit of set off and has been acquitted of the charge under section 302 of the IPC and 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. A complaint was filed by the complainant-Harunbhai Husainbhai, inter alia alleging that he had three brothers namely Kasambhai, Yusufbhai-deceased and Habibbhai. It is alleged that the appellant herein and his parents were living beside th...


Dec 10 2013

Sunil Kumar Patodia Vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal - Ii âandeuro;andldqu ...

Court: Gujarat

Decided on: Dec-10-2013

1. The petitioner is one of the directors of respondent No.3 Company who has committed defaults in repaying loans / credit facilities to the tune of about Rs 25.25 Crores granted by respondent No.2 bank. 1.1 The petitioner is also one of the guarantors. 1.2 This petition is preferred against order dated 22.10.2013 in S.A. No. 77 of 2013 passed by the Learned Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the œlearned Tribunal) whereby the learned Tribunal has rejected the said S.A. No. 77 of 2013 holding, inter alia, that the application is not maintainable before learned Tribunal at Ahmedabad. Learned Tribunal has observed and held, inter alia, that:- 5. On bare reading the above noted provisions of Section 19(1), I am of the opinion that, Ld. DRT-I Kolkata and Hon'ble Calcutta High Court have had only jurisdiction to try this SA.? 2. In the said order dated 22.10.2013 learned Tribunal has further observed and held that:- œ6. Therefore with ought most re...


Dec 05 2013

S.B. Bhadauria Vs. State of Gujarat and Others

Court: Gujarat

Decided on: Dec-05-2013

Oral Judgment: 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (A) direct the respondent authorities to release the annual increments of the petitioner from July, 2005, onwards, with arrears of pay, with interest, at the rate which the Hon ble Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, and (B) award the cost of the petition, and pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Hon ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release the annual increments of the petitioner from July, 2005 onwards. 2. Heard Mr. Vaibhav Vyas learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Hardik Soni learned AGP for the respondent- authorities. 3. Mr. Vaibhav Vyas learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the facts of the present petition is that the petitioner was selected by the Gujarat Public Service Commission for the post of lecturer in Hindi in Government College. Pursuant to this selectio...


Dec 03 2013

Miracle Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. and Anoth ...

Court: Gujarat

Decided on: Dec-03-2013

Oral Judgment 1. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, duly incorporated under the Companies Act and consumer of electricity energy has approached this Court by way of this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 23/7/2002 on the grounds mentioned in the memo of the petition. 2. The facts leading to filing of this petition as could be gathered from memo of the petition, deserve to be set out as under. The petitioner was having a plastic factory and therefore consuming electricity energy having Consumer Connection No: 33444/01553/2 where under supply was given. The petitioners initial connection was under LTP-I category and as he intended to change the category from LTP-I to LTP-III, he applied for change in the tariff category from LTP-I to LTP-III on February 02, 2002. The employees of the board replaced the old meter and took away old meter with its MMB (Metal Meter Box) and installed new meter pursuant to the request for shif...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial