Gujarat Court April 2013 Judgments
Kantibhai Ramabhia Gamar Vs. Anubhag Nirikshakni Kacheri and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Vishal Patel, learned A.G.P. for the respondent-authorities. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 31.07.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Himmatnagar whereby the learned Labour Court has rejected the Reference of the petitioner-workman. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner was serving with the respondent authorities since 01.07.1989 as watchman. 3. As per the case of the petitioner, he was given quarter and he was working with the office of the respondent continuously until he was orally terminated on 30.05.1999. The respondent raised industrial dispute which came to be referred to the Labour Court, Himmatnagar for adjudication. Before the Labour Court, the respondent appeared and contested the case of the petitioner. It is the case of the respondent that petitioner was serving as daily wager as and when work was available. The respondent stated that pe...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra N Shah Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-22-2013
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ. 1. By this Public Interest Litigation, the writ-petitioner has prayed for quashing of the Constitution [97th amendment] Act, 2011 introducing part IXB, as ultra vires the Constitution of India. 2. The case made out by the writ-petitioner is that the Constitution [97th amendment] Act, 2011 was passed by the Lok Sabha on 22nd December 2011 and the same was passed by the Rajya Sabha on 28th December 2011. The President of India bestowed assent to that amendment on 12th January 2012 and the said notification was published in the gazette of India of 13th January 2012 and the amendment came into force on 15th February 2012. 2.1 According to the petitioner, the power under Article 368 of the Constitution of India itself is the basic structure of the Constitution of India and the fact that by the impugned constitutional amendment, the procedure prescribed in the article 368(2) of the Constitution, which recognizes the federal structure of the Constitution as one of th...
Tag this Judgment!Parshottambhai Keshavbhai Goyani and Others Vs. Bhavnagar Dist. Co.Op ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-22-2013
1. Heard Mr. Kiran Yajnik, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. K.M. Patel learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun K. Patel for the respondent Bank. 2. Challenge in this group of petitions is made to the order passed by the Appellate Authority, Rajkot under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, dated 24.11.2005. By the said order, the order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act dated 31.12.2004 is set aside. 3.1 Facts necessary for adjudicating the issues raised in this group of petitions, as emerging from record, are as under. 3.2 The petitioners were in service of the respondent-Bank. 3.3 The petitioners were paid gratuity at the time of their retirement, as per their entitlement. 3.4 After the retirement of the petitioners, the respondent Bank had entered into settlement with the employees working with it. 3.5 It was the case of the petitioners that, they were entitled to the gratuity at the enhanced rate, as if they were also the beneficiaries of the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Manjudevi R. Somani Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-22-2013
J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a debtor of the Union Bank of India, calls in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 17th July 2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, in Miscellaneous Application No.73 of 2012 being Exhibit 1 in exercise of powers under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 by which the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad directed the local police to assist the secured creditor, namely, the Union Bank of India to take over the possession of the secured assets mortgaged by the petitioner at the time of availing of the loan facility. 2. The petitioner also calls in question the legality, validity and propriety of the office order bearing no.A(VI) 40/2012 issued by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad dated 4th February...
Tag this Judgment!Manilal Ramjibhai Chaudhary Vs. State of Gujarat Thro Executive Direct ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr.Oza, learned advocate for petitioner. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed that: 4(a) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue appropriate writ or direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order ANNEXURE-A VIDE No. GMRDS/VHT/MS/12/3885 dated 12.10.2012 and be directed the extension of the service agreement ANNEXURE-B for two years in the interest of justice. (b) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to give direction to the Respondents that none of the person to be employed in the place of the present petitioner will the final hearing and disposal of this petition in the interest of justice. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision dated 12.10.2012 whereby the petitioner came to be informed that the period of his contractual employment would come to an end w.e.f. 13.10.2012 and the authority does not find it appropriate to extend said contractual appointment and therefore his engagement with the respondent would come to an end and stand conc...
Tag this Judgment!Jinabhai Chhibhabhai Patel and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-2013
Oral Judgment: Respondent No.2 herein-original complainant, has filed complaint before the learned J.M.F.C. Baroda, against his father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, in all, 9 of his near relatives, for defamation. The complaint was registered as Criminal Case No. 4203/2008. It is the contention of the complainant that the father-in-law of the complainant by writing a letter dated 28.12.2005 and showing the contents of the said letter to near relatives has defamed the complainant. It appears that the learned Magistrate, after recording verification, has sent the complaint to the concerned police station for inquiry. In the present application, the applicants have prayed to quash the complaint. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. P.B.Shah for the applicants, learned advocate Mr. Amrish Pandya for respondent No.2 and learned A.P.P. Mr. N.J.Shah for respondent No.1 State. 3. Learned advocate Mr.Shah for the applicants submitted that the complainant has filed the complain...
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Engineering Works Vs. Khushalbhai Manilal Chavda and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-2013
Jayant Patel, J. 1. ADMIT. Ms. Vijayalakshmi, learned counsel, waives service for respondent No.1 and Mr. Jayaswal, learned AGP, waives service for respondents No.2 and 3. With the consent of learned counsel appearing on both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 24.01.2012 passed by learned single Judge of this Court in SCA No.830 of 2012, whereby learned single Judge, for the reasons recorded in the order, did not interfere with the order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The short facts of the case are that, as per the appellant, respondent No.1 retired from service with effect from 15.11.2000 since he had reached the age of superannuation on completion of 60 years of age, whereas as per respondent No.1, he had not completed the requisite length of service nor had he reached the age of superannuation. Thereupon, a dispute under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Baria Keshamben Mangalbhai Vs. Chief Officer and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
Oral Judgment: [1] The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash and set aside the appointment of the respondent No.2 as Anganwadi Worker and to direct the respondent No.1 to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Center at Baria / Bhagat Falia, Village Vulundi, Taluka: Limkheda, District : Dahod. [2] It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 had issued public advertisement dated 25.02.2012 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Aganwadi Workers in different Center in the Taluka of Limkheda. The petitioner made application with requisite certificates / documents. The petitioner has averred that after the interview of the candidates who applied for Anganwadi Workers, the merit list for appointment was prepared and the petitioner was shown aSr.No.1 in the merit list as the petitioner was possessing more education qualifications than the respondent No.2 and the respondent No....
Tag this Judgment!JaIn Prachya Vidhyabhavan Through Authorised Trustee Vs. Girishbhai Mu ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Present petition has been directed against the judgment and order dated 05/03/2013, passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad in Civil Revision Application No. 12 of 2012, preferred by the present petitioner original applicant landlord by which the Appellate Bench was pleased to dismiss the said revision application confirming the order of City Deputy Collector (Western), Ahmedabad, passed in Electric/ Appeal/ Case No. 3/2012 dated 31/08/2012, by which the application filed by the present respondent original applicant tenant was allowed and the tenant applicant was allowed to continue/restore his electric connection, which was disconnected by the electric company, on payment of the outstanding bill amount, and at his costs. 2. Heard, learned advocate Mr. K. V. Shelat with learned advocate Mr. Viral K. Salot for the petitioner landlord. The learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that if the tenant wants new connection for...
Tag this Judgment!Wallington Moses Macwan Vs. Municipal School Board and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
Oral Judgment Jayant Patel, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 18.01.2013 passed by learned single Judge of this Court in SCA No.3057 of 2012, whereby learned single Judge, for the reasons recorded in the order, dismissed the petition. 2. We have heard Mr.Asthavadi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-original petitioner, Mr.Patel for M/s.H.L.Patel Advocates for respondents No.1 and 2, Mr.Jayswal, learned AGP for respondent No.3 and Mr.Vyas for respondent No.4, and taken up the matter for final disposal. 3. The brief facts are that, wife of the appellant-petitioner Smt.Sarojben Wallington Macwan, daughter of Hanokhbhai Christian, was working as a teacher with Municipal School Board at Ahmedabad. Because of her health problem, she voluntarily retired on 31.12.2006. Thereupon, she was receiving pension. Thereafter she expired on 04.11.2007. The petitioner in the capacity as husband of the deceased applied to get family pension and produced certificate of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »