Gujarat Court August 2013 Judgments
Yogeshbhai Maheshchandra Jani, Heirs and Legal Representative Vs. Prag ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
1. The oft-quoted œH. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N.Thimmajamma and Ors., AIR 1959 SC 443? was yet again pressed into service in support of the submission that Will in the present case is suspicious. 2. The facts of the case are somewhat interesting. One Hasumatiben had executed aWill on 2.3.1985. At the relevant time, she was a teacher in the Sanand Girls School, District - Ahmedabad. Hasumatiben had bequeathed her property to two girls i.e. Ritaben and Pragnaben and she had appointed one Jayantilal Kalidas as executor of the Will. The present appellant is the only son of deceased Hasumatiben. Ritaben and Pragnaben are not related to the deceased, while Ritaben is the daughter of Jayantilal Kalidas, the executor and Pragnaben is the daughter of one Rameshbhai. Jayantilal and Rameshbhai are the neighbourers of the deceased Hasumatiben. At the relevant time, the appellant “ son of the deceased, was serving in the Co-operative Bank at Patan. It is the say of the appellant that ...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of India Vs. Ghanshyambhai Muljibhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
J.B. Pardiwala, J. This Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of an unsuccessful respondent of a writ-application and is directed against an order dated 11th February 2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.8605 of 2000, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the petition, directing the appellant-Bank to consider the case of the respondent herein (original petitioner) for grant of pension under Regulation 33 of the Pension Regulations, 1995. Being dissatisfied, the unsuccessful respondent of the writ-application has come up with the present Letters Patent Appeal. In the Special Civil Application No.8605 of 2000 filed by the respondent herein before us, the following prayers were made : (a) declaring that regulation 33 of the Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 in so far as it denies pension on compulsory retirement to an employee compulsorily retired from the service before 01.11.1993 is arbitrary...
Tag this Judgment!Binaben W/O Kulinbhai Shah D/O Sunderlal Shah Vs. Kulinkumar Chandrava ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-21-2013
1. By presenting this present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant wife has sought to challenge judgment and decree dated 06.08.2011 of learned Additional District Judge, Surat at Vyara in Regular Civil Appeal No.32 of 2008, whereby the First Appellate Court confirm the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dissolving the marriage in a petition filed by the respondent-husband. The decree of divorce was prayed for and came to be passed on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 2. It was on the following substantial question of law formulated by the Court, that the present appeal was admitted: œWhether the lower appellate court was justified in holding that decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 could be granted on the ground of irretrievable break down of marriage?? 3. A profile of facts and events leading to the litigation between the spouses and culminating into the present appeal may be noted with releva...
Tag this Judgment!Kanji Odhavji Patel and Others Vs. State of Gujarat Through Secretary ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-19-2013
Oral Judgment 1. The short facts of the case are that the land bearing Old Survey No.141 2 Acre and 9 Guntha situated at Village : Ghagratiya, Taluka : Limdi, Dist. Surendranagar, was owned by Trivadi Harishanker Zinabhai. Thereafter Trivadi Harishanker Zinabhai expired and after his death interest in the property was transferred to his daughter Oja Taraben Ranchhodabhai and she executed Registered Mortgage Deed on 21.4.2051 and as per the Mortgage Deed the possession of the land was also given to Odhavjibhai Patel, father of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that based on the Mortgage Deed the revenue entry was also mutated on 13.10.1983 and the petitioner remained in possession since the period of his father Odhavjibhai Patel. 2. On 23.3.1998 the application was made to the revenue authority informing that Trivadi Harishanker Zinabhai had expired intestate without any legal heirs. The Mamlatdar thereafter informed to the District Collector and suggested the forfeiture ...
Tag this Judgment!Gitaben Vinodrai Dave Vs. Jilla Panchayat Bhavnagar and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs in paragraph 10(A) to (C) in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. œ(A) That this Honble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to release the arrears of family pension with 12% interest from the date of the issuance of the policy by the State Government of Gujarat and further continue to pay the family pension to the petitioner till the life time. (B) This Honble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents No.1and2 to release the amount of Gratuity and the Provident Fund and two months salary which has not been paid to the petitioner with interest. (C) This Honble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No.1and2 to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment to her son.? 2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Dudabhai Dalabhai Gohil Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
Oral Judgment: K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. The appellants have preferred the present appeal challenging the judgement and order dated 30.12.2006 passed in Sessions Case No. 41 of 1998. The appellants “ original accused were convicted for the offences punishable under sections 302, 324, 323 and 504 read with section 114 of Indian Penal Code as well as sections 37(1) and 135 of B.P. Act. 1.1 The appellants were ordered to undergo the following sentence : (i) Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default, simple imprisonment for one year for offence under section 302 r/w 114 of Indian Penal Code; (ii) Rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- each, in default, simple imprisonment for three months for offence under section 324 r/w 114 of Indian Penal Code; (iii) Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, simple imprisonment for one month for offence under section 323 r/w 114 of Indian Penal Code; (iv) Rigorous imprisonment f...
Tag this Judgment!Aditya Birla Insulators Vs. Commissioner of Labour and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J: 1. This Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of an employer and is directed against order dated 26th February 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 670 of 2013 by which the learned Single Judge, after passing some direction upon the Industrial Tribunal, refused to interfere with the order impugned. 2. Being dissatisfied, the unsuccessful applicant of the writ-application has come up with the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. In the Special Civil Application No. 670 of 2013 filed by the appellants before us, the following prayers were made: œ(a).Your Lordship be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus order/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.12.2012 passed by the respondent no.1 “ Commissioner of Labour, State of Gujarat (Annexure-A). (b).During the pendency of hearing and final disposa...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Through Secretary and Another Vs. Kanubhai Kantilal R ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ. 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 428 days in filing a Letters Patent Appeal preferred against an order dated 27th December 2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 12613 of 2011 by which the learned Single Judge set aside an order dated 25th September 1992 denying higher pay scale to the respondent with effect from 30th January 1990 and directed the appellants herein to grant the first higher pay scale to the respondent with effect from 30th January 1990 along with other consequential benefits within a period of three months from the receipt of the order. 2. The case made out by the appellants in the application for condonation of delay may be summed up thus:- [a]. The judgment was passed by the learned Single Judge on 27th December 2011 and the certified copy of the said order was received on 28th February 2012 by the department concerned and the delay occurred mainly because of administrative r...
Tag this Judgment!Dilipbhai C. Nathvani Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-12-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioner“Ex-Chairman of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Kalavad (œAPMC? for short) has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the action on the part of the Administrator of respondent No.3 Committee in initiating process of grant of new licenses for the year 2012-13 and to quash and set aside order dated 2.6.2012 passed by respondent No.3 whereby one Shri PI Jadeja, Inspector, Market Committee- Kalavad (Shitla) was asked to make scrutiny in respect of the applications made for licenses and to submit his report. The petitioner has also prayed to issue writ of prohibition restraining respondent No.3 from taking any policy decision in the management and the affairs of the APMC. 2. The petitioner has given history about different litigations against the Market Committee and alleged that though the term of the APMC was to expire on 24.6.2011 and though he made representation dated 2.2.2011 request...
Tag this Judgment!Mansing Bodabhai Bariya Vs. Deputy Police Commissioner, Surat and Anot ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-12-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. This is one matter wherein, even when the Court may have some sympathy or full sympathy for the petitioner, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, who is before this Court, praying that: œYour Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or direction and may be pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by the respondent No.1 (Deputy Police Commissioner, East Zone, Surat) dismissing the petitioner and order passed by the respondent No.2 (Additional Police Commissioner, Range-1, Surat) confirming the dismissal as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India?; 2. The petitioner has set out in the memo of petition in para 2.1 that he was appointed as Unarmed Police Constable by order dated blank October, 1983. The petitioner was transferred to Varacha Police Station in 1998. 3. The present petition is filed challenging the order by which he is dismissed from service for having remained unauthorizedl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »