Gujarat Court September 2014 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.
Piyush Maganbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat Thro Secretary and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-2014
C.L. Soni, J. 1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of the original petitioner who filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the respondents in refusing to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner as illegal and unconstitutional and to direct the respondents to consider his case for compassionate appointment on the basis of the rules prevailing at the time of his application dated 13.2.2004. 2. Learned Single Judge rejected the petition mainly on the ground of delay by observing that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat and Others versus Budhabhai A. Chavda reported in 2011 (2) GLR 1236 could not be applied in the prevailing circumstances. 3. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties. Learned Advocate Mr. Baxi appearing for the appellant submitted that after the father of the appellant expired on 4.9.2003, the appellant moved application for c...
Manoj @ Manuji Bhuraji Bhil Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-2014
1. Heard Mr.Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Bipin Bhatt, learned AGP for respondent State. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner detenue has prayed to quash and set aside the order of detention dated 24.04.2014 passed by the concerned authority, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 by detaining the detenu as a bootlegger as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act as well as under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short 'the PASA Act') by detaining the detenue as a 'dangerous person' as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act. 3. The detenu came to be detained as bootlegger on his involvement in the offences being C.R.No. III 5494 of 2012 and C.R.No. III 5032 of 2013 registered before Himmatnagar Town Police Station. 4. The detenue also came to be detained as dangerous person on his involvement in the offences being C.R.No. II 3513 o...
Babusinh Udaji Makwana Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-2014
R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. This Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner herein being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.28 of 2012, whereby the learned Tribunal has been pleased to dismiss the original application of the present petitioner wherein relief of compassionate appointment was sought. 2. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows: 2.1. That the father of the petitioner was working as a Postmaster, Lodra Post Office in Gandhinagar Division. He died on 03.11.1993 while in service. The deceased had left behind his widow, four daughters and two sons including the petitioner. At the time of the death of the petitioner's father, the present petitioner was minor and after attaining the age of majority, he had applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The case of the present petitioner was placed before the Circle Relaxation Committee (C...
Ashokbhai Mohanbhai Vankar Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-2014
1. Rule. Mr.D.M.Devnani, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided, finally. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the communication dated 26.11.2010, issued by respondent No.3, the Regional Transport Officer, rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds, be quashed and set aside. The petitioner has further challenged the communication dated 23.02.2012, issued by the office of respondent No.2, Commissioner of Transport, whereby, the application of the petitioner for the grant of lumpsum financial aid, has been rejected. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner, who was working as a Peon under respondent No.2, died while in service on 16.12.1993. At ...
Tata Teleservices Limited Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-2014
1. These petitions are filed by three different companies. They are the licensees authorised to provide telecommunication services to their customers under the provisions of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 ('TRAI Act' for short). 2. The customer application form/subscriber's application form/customer enrollment form provided by the petitioners with terms and condition attached to the form or given separately filled in by the intending customer and accepted by the petitioners to provide telecommunication services is considered as 'instrument' chargeable with duty under the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 ('the Act' for short) by the respondents and the petitioners have been subjected to payment of stamp duty on subscribers base for different periods under the orders and the demand notices impugned in these petitions filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The challenge made to the orders and to the demand notices is mainly on two grounds; one is that the ...
Harpalsinh Bharatsinh Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-11-2014
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Tejas P. Satta for the applicant, learned APP Ms.Jirga Jhaveri for respondent no.1 - State and learned advocate Mr.Pratik Barot for respondent no.2 - original accused and applicant in application for bail before the Sessions Court, Mehsana, which is challenged herein. 2. By impugned judgment and order dated 29.3.2014, 3rd Addl.Sessions Judge, Mehsana has granted bail to respondent no.2 in Criminal Misc.Application no.180 of 2014 for the offences registered u/ss.143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 135 of Gujarat Police Act pursuant to FIR registered with Mehsana 'B' Division police station being I - C.R.No.25 of 2014. Applicant herein is original complainant. On 8.2.2014, he lodged a complaint contending that on previous day i.e. on 7.2.2014, there was a scuffle between him and one driver of a tanker regarding small accident between his two-wheeler and such tanker. Thereafter, he had been to his gara...
Baldev @ Bali Virbhanu Dangar (Ahir) and Others Vs. State of Gujarat a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-11-2014
1. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent - State. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Virat G. Popat for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Megha Chitaliya for the respondent - State. 2. Petitioner is apprehending his detention pursuant to FIR being C. R. No. I- 141/2014 with Rajkot "B" Division Police Station under Section 307, 324, 504, 142, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1)(B)(A) and 27 of the Arms Act as well as Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act. Such FIR is registered against 5 accused and they have preferred separate applications at pre - execution stage to avoid their detention. However, in all such petitions all the petitioners have categorically stated in para 2 of their petition that "The petitioner submits that there are certain other cases which are registered against the present petitioner but the petitioner is not at present in detail describing the same as those incidents are stale incidents and much time has e...
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Others Vs. Gujarat Borosil Ltd ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-11-2014
Oral Judgment: Vijay Manohar Sahai, J. 1. The appellants have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the common judgment and order dated 16.02.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.4259 of 2007 and other allied matters. 2. The short facts are that the respondent herein executed a Memorandum of Entry (hereinafter referred to as the instrument for short) dated 18th March 1993 by way of mortgage in favour of Financial Institutions/Banks. Before the execution of the instrument, the respondent made an application to appellant No.2 under Section 31 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) for adjudication of proper stamp duty leviable under the provisions of the Act. The appellant No.2 herein determined the stamp duty leviable at Rs.10,000/. On adjudication of stamp duty by appellant No.2, the respondent herein paid the said amount to appellant No.2. Hence, the appella...
Dayaram Nemabhai Patel and Another Vs. Chhaganbhai Nemabhai Patel Dece ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-11-2014
1. Heard Ld. Advocates for the parties at length on different dates and perused the record of the Appeal From Order [hereinafter referred to as 'AO'] as well as relevant paper book filed by the parties and record of Special Civil Application No. 21689/2005 [hereinafter referred to as 'SCA'] Pursuant to order dated 27/4/2006, such Special Civil Application with Civil Applications are to be notified with this AO, since both the matters are arising out of the same litigation between the same parties before the trial Court. 2. Present AO is filed against judgment and order dated 23/10/2001 passed below exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 377/2000 by 3rd Joint Civil Judge [S.D.] at Surat. The said Civil Suit was filed by the present appellants against present respondents, who are original defendants and now some of them are legal heirs of original defendants, since pending the appeal, some of the original defendants have expired and their legal heirs are joined as such at relevant time as per ...
State of Gujarat and Another Vs. Savitaben Vitthalbhai Ravaliya
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-09-2014
C.L. Soni, J. 1. This appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of the original respondents in the petition filed by the respondent herein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to pay family pension to her on the basis of total service put in by her husband from 21.6.1974 to 21.7.1989 with 12% interest. 2. Learned Single Judge has allowed the petition on the ground that the qualifying service of 13 years put in by the husband of the petitioner would make the petitioner entitled to family pension. 3. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties. 4. Learned Asstt. Government Pleader Mr. P.P.Banaji for the appellants submitted that the husband of the present respondent was daily wager who had left the service with effect from 22.6.1988 and, therefore, he was not entitled to any benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Mr. Banaji submitted that the requirement under the said resolution is that the daily wager should ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »