Gujarat Court September 2014 Judgments
Executive Engineer and Others Vs. Gitaben
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-29-2014
C.L. Soni, J. 1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of the original respondents against whom the respondent herein- original petitioner preferred the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash and set aside the communication dated 12.7.2007 at Annexure-F whereby the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected by respondent No.1 on the ground that the petitioner was not holding requisite qualification of SSC for Class-IV post as per the notification dated 16.3.2005 notifying the Recruitment Rules for such Class-IV post. 2. Learned Single Judge, however, quashed and set aside the said order of the respondent No.1 and held that the respondent herein shall be entitled for appointment on Class-IV post as per the policy prevailing at the time of making application for compassionate appointment and directed the appellants to pass appropriate order appointing the respondent on compassionate ground with...
Tag this Judgment!Siddraj Ashokkumar Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-29-2014
C.L. Soni, J. 1. The appellant is the original petitioner who preferred the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 12.1.2012 rejecting the application of the appellant for compassionate appointment. The appellant also sought direction in his petition against the respondents to consider his case for compassionate appointment. 2. The facts not in dispute are that the father of the appellant who was serving as Deputy Mamlatdar, expired on 7.11.2001. Since the appellant was minor, the mother of the appellant made application on 2.2.2002. The Collector recommended for giving compassionate appointment to her. However, the respondent No.2 informed the Collector that the compassionate appointment could not be given to her as she was not holding required qualification. The appellant became major and acquired qualification of graduation. He, therefore, applied on 28.2.2008 for compassionate appointment. However, the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Devjibhai Murji Rabdiya Vs. Nathani Vasantkumar Purshottam
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-26-2014
1. By this revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("the Code" for short), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.5.2009 passed by the Mamlatdar, Mandvi under the Mamlatdar Courts Act ("the Act" for short) as well as the confirming order dated 21.7.2010 passed by the Deputy Collector, Bhuj in revision application no.2 of 2009, preferred by the petitioner. 2. The Mamlatdar, by his order dated 12.5.2009, allowed the suit preferred by the respondent and ordered the petitioner to restore the use of way through his land and further restrained the petitioner from preventing the respondent in using the way for the purpose of taking agricultural equipments/instruments by the respondent. 3. The above order passed by the Mamlatdar was challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Collector by filing the revision application under section 23 of the Act. 4. Before the Deputy Collector, no objection as regards limitation for filing the suit under the A...
Tag this Judgment!Darji Bhartiben Jashubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-26-2014
1. Rule. Mr.D.M. Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, wavies service of notice of Rule for the respondents, in each petition. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petitions are being heard and decided, finally. 2. The challenge in this group of petitions is to the impugned orders of different dates passed by the Deputy Collector, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Palanpur, terminating the services of the petitioners herein as Administrators-cum-Cooks and directing them to deposit different amounts. The petitioners have also challenged the orders of different dates passed by the Collector, Banaskantha, whereby the appeals filed by them, against the orders of termination, have been rejected. 3. As similar issues of law and fact arise in these petitions, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. 4. The brief factual background in each petition is as follow: (1) The petitioner of S...
Tag this Judgment!Doshion Veolia Water Solution Pvt Ltd Vs. Bank of Baroda and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-26-2014
1. Heard Ld. Advocate Mr. UD Shukla with Mr. Tirthraj Pandya for the appellant, Ld. Advocate Mr. Pranav G Desai for the respondent no. 1 and Ld. Advocate Mr. Sahil Shah for the respondent no. 3. 2. The appellant is original plaintiff, whereas the respondents are original defendants and they are referred in the same capacity herein also. 3. The appellant has preferred Civil Suit No. 359 of 2014 before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad for declaration that invocation of the bank guarantees, details of which are disclosed in the plaint, is illegal, null and void and fraudulent and unforceable and not binding to the plaintiff and that the defendant no. 3 is not entitled to invoke bank guarantees and thereby defendant nos. 1 and 2 are not entitled or liable to make payment of such bank guarantees with ancillary relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from invocation of the bank guarantees under reference on the ground of fraud and equitable relief. 4. By impugned order dated...
Tag this Judgment!Legal Heirs and Rep. of Decd. Babubhai Jetubhai Kathi Vs. Jusabhai Dad ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-2014
Oral Judgment This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ["the Act" for short] is at the instance of the claimants in a proceeding under section 166 of the Act and is directed against an award dated 19th April 2005, passed by the Jt. District Judge and M.A.C. Tribunal [Aux.], Amreli in M.A.C. Petition No. 78 of 2000, thereby partly allowing the claim-application and awarding a sum of Rs. 2,48,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of filing of the claim-application till realization. Being dissatisfied, the claimants have come up with the present appeal. It may not be out of place to mention here that neither the insurance company nor the owner of the erring vehicle has preferred either any separate appeal or any cross-objection in this appeal. Therefore, the involvement of the vehicles in the accident and the coverage of insurance of the vehicles are not in dispute. The only question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the Tribuna...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kantilal Vadilal Kamdar and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-2014
1. This First Appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act [the Act, hereafter] is at the instance of an Insurance Company and is directed against an award dated 27th April 2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [Aux.], Ahmedabad City in M.A.C.P. No. 710 of 1998 thereby disposing of a proceeding under section 166 of the Act by awarding a sum of Rs.2,88,000-00 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till 31st December 2000 and at the rate of 6% per annum from 1st January 2001 till realization. 2. Being dissatisfied, the Insurance Company has come up with the present appeal. 3. The claimants happen to be parents of the deceased who died at the age of 51 years. They came up with an application under section 166 of the Act claiming a sum of Rs.6 lakh for the death of their son, Bharatbhai Kantilal Kamdar, and the case made out by the claimants was as follows:- 3.1 The accident took place at about 11.30 a.m. on 17th December 1997 o...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Niraliben Ramanlal and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-2014
Akil Kureshi, J. 1. In this petition the petitioners have challenged a Notification dated 4th February, 2012 at Annexure "J" to the petition, as being unconstitutional. The petitioners have further prayed for a direction to grant appointments to the petitioners on priority basis to the post of Livestock Inspectors. 2. The brief facts are as under:- 2.1 The State Government, in order to meet with the requirement of trained Livestock Inspectors at distant and far away places, which task would not be possible to be performed only with the aid of the veterinary doctors, has created the cadre of Livestock Inspectors in the Department of Animal Husbandry. These Livestock Inspectors, as is apparent from the Government of Gujarat's Notification dated 27th February, 2001, were allowed to attend to the livestocks under the supervision and direction of a registered veterinary practitioner, as long as they are in the Government service. 2.2 In exercise of the powers under Article 309 of the Consti...
Tag this Judgment!Unique Yarn Industries Pvt Ltdthro-Director, O.P. Bazari and Another V ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-2014
[1] This case reminds me of MuhammadBinTughlaq (13231327 A.D.) who was Sultan of Delhi. It is true that success is not an outcome of knowledge alone. In spite of being a learned person, a scholar and a man of vision and innovations, he earned the epithet of "PAGLA TUGHLAQ" on account of his impulsive behaviour and hasty moves, which failed and added to the miseries of his courtiers and the common people, causing them great hardships and sufferings. Shifting of his capital from Delhi to Daulatabad was a great failure in his era. Prior to independence of India, most of such "KingdomsRajvadas" merged and democracy prevailed in India and in turn, Constitution of India was formed. It was thought that "achhe din a gaye" but the ground reality is altogether different. This case is a classic example of misuse of power, carelessness and negligent attitude of high ranking Government officials of GIDC, who have no heart and regards towards truth but act as per their whims and fancies. [1.1] Heard...
Tag this Judgment!Oreintal Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Amarba Revtubha Jadeja and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-2014
1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is at the instance of an Insurance Company and is directed against an award dated 16th June 2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Main], Banaskantha, at Palanpur in M.A.C.P. No. 705 of 1998 thereby awarding a sum of Rs.3,92,200/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum along with proportionate costs, after holding that the Insurance company is liable to pay the said amount. 2. Being dissatisfied, the Insurance Company has come up with the present appeal. 3. Mr. Nair, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has, at the very outset, submitted that he will confine his submissions only on the question of quantum of compensation. According to him, the Tribunal below awarded excessive compensation by not following the well-settled law laid down by the Supreme Court. 4. It appears from the materials on record that on 17th August 1998, while the deceased was driving a motor cycle, another vehicl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »