Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1986)2GLR910
B.K. Mehta, Actg. C.J.1. Since these two petitions, first at the instance of 33 aggrieved workmen challenging the closure of Bakubhai Mangaldas Institute of Mental Health (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute'), and second at the instance of the said Institute challenging the award of arbitration under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act directing reinstatement of 33 workmen-respondents Nos. 2 to 34 of the said petition, raise common questions of law and facts, we intend to dispose them of by this common judgment. In order to appreciate these questions in proper perspective, it is necessary to set out briefly the relevant facts and circumstances which have led to the filing of these two petitions.2. B.M. Institute is a non-profit, research, service and training organisation interested broadly in preventive mental health services. It was originally founded as a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 in the year 1966. It was also registered as a public...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2009Guj16; (2009)1GLR270
M.R. Shah, J.1. Present Appeal from Order is filed by the appellants - original defendant Nos. 2 and defendant Nos. 5 to 7 of Special Civil Suit No. 04 of 2002 challenging the order and decree passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Deesa dated 20th July, 2007 below Exhibit Nos. 623, 637, 626, 638, 645 and 635 in Special Civil Suit No. 04 of 2002.2. Mr. H.M.Parikh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 to 11 herein and defendant Nos. 14 and 15 has raised preliminary objection with respect to maintainability of present Appeal from Order under Order 43 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. As preliminary objection with respect to maintainability of present Appeal from Order is raised, this Court proposes to consider the same first. 3. Few facts are necessary for the purpose of determination of maintainability of present Appeal from Order against impugned judgement, order and decree passed by the learned trial Court:Respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/6 herein - original plaintiffs in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : I(2008)BC268; 2007CriLJ2182
D.H. Waghela, J.1. Revisionist, the original accused person in Criminal Case No. 1683 of 1996 pending in the court of learned JMFC, Gandevi, has called into question the order dated 22.1.1998 made below her application for discharge under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code'). It was contended in the application for discharge that the petitioner herein had given a post dated cheque against the promise of execution of a document of sale of immoveable property and upon failure of the complainant to execute the documents, the petitioner had stopped payment of the cheque in question. Thus, despite the clear understanding and instruction to the original complainant not to present the cheque for realization, the cheque having been presented and dishonoured, the petitioner had prayed for an order of discharge. The trial court, after consideration of the contentions of the parties, observed that there was a prima facie case for proceeding with the summons ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2007CriLJ2517; (2008)1GLR80
C.K. Buch, J.1. Both the appellants are original accused of Criminal Case No. 3 of 1995 decided on 26th June, 1997, who have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and for violation of paragraph 10 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1987 and the appeal has been preferred under the provisions of Sections 374 read with Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Mr.Mangukia, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has taken me through the judgment under challenge as well as the various grounds of challenge mentioned in the memo of appeal. Mr.Mangukia, learned Counsel and Ms.Pandit, learned A.P.P., both have taken me through the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence referred too by the learned trial Judge while recording conviction and dealing with technical defence that were raised during the course of trial. 3. Of course, Mr.Mangukia, has argued at length on legal issues as well as on factual metrics, howeve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2007Guj192; (2007)2GLR1833
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioners-original plaintiffs have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Vadodara below an application Exh. 154 in Regular Civil Suit No. 774 of 1987 on 3-1-2005, on the ground that the said order is absolutely illegal, unjust, improper, irrational, invalid and unreasonable. It is also challenged on the ground that the said order is passed with total non-application of mind and on misconception of facts and law. It is further challenged on the ground that it is passed in violation of and in utter disregard of the statutory provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and against the judicial pronouncements.2. Notice was issued by this Court on 22-2-2005 and ad-interim relief in terms of Para 8(E) of the petition was granted and further proceedings of the Regular Civil Suit No. 774 of 1987 were stayed. The Court has also permitted the petitioner to delete the name of petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2008)1GLR544
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Narmada Project Unit-12, Bharuch and Executive Engineer, Narmada Yojna Naher Division No. 2/3, Karjan, Dist. Baroda appellants herein-original opponents have filed these appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgment and award dated 24-2-2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Bharuch in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 1414 to 1419 of 1997, Main Case No. 1414 of 1997. By the impugned judgment, learned Judge has pleased to partly allow the reference applications for proportionate cost. The learned Judge has held that the applicants are entitled to receive market price on their acquired land at the rate of Rs. 36-50 per sq.mtr. as additional amount of compensation in Compensation Case No. 13 of 1995 over and above compensation of Rs. 4-17 per sq.mtrs. which was awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, that means the learned Judge awarded in all Rs. 40-67 ps. per sq.mtrs. The learned Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1982Guj37; (1981)GLR934
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. These two petitions by different students but against the common respondents, viz. the Gujarat University and the State of Gujarat, can be conveniently taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment as the questions canvassed in these petitions and also at the time of hearing were almost conamon. With the concurrence of the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. A few facts require to be closely noted in order to comprehend the controversy which is the basis of these two petitions. The respondent No. 1, the Gujarat University, is a corporate body having a perpetual succession and a common seal, capable of suing and liable to be sued by the said name. It is a body floated Under the Act which was Put on the statute books because it was found 'expedient' to establish and incorporate a teaching and affiliating University in the (then) Province of Bombay to be known as th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1988]174ITR77(Guj)
S. B. MAJMUDAR J. -*****Introductory facts :- In order to appreciate the contours of controversy between the parties, relevant introductory facts are required to be noted at the outset. The appellant in First Appeal No. 48 of 1974 is Dhrangadhra Municipality which is at present functioning under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, but which was earlier a district municipality under the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901. The respondent in the first appeal is Dhrangadhra Chemical Works. Dhrangadhra Municipality was the original defendant while Dhrangadhra Chemical Works was the original plaintiff in Civil Jurisdiction Suit No. 76 of 1963 which was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge (S.D.), Surendranagar, to recover Rs. 6,29,066.97 on the ground that the said amount was illegally collected and retained by the defendant municipality from the plaintiff towards octroi. Special Civil Application No. 1729 of 1977 has been moved by the plaintiff directly in this court against the State of Guja...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2008ACJ2711; (2008)1GLR327
K.M. Mehta, J.1. United India Insurance Company Limited, appellant-original opponent No. 2, has filed this appeal against the judgment and award dated 27th April, 2000, passed by the Ex-officio Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Labour Judge, Labour Court, Jamnagar in Workmen's Case Nos. 10 to 23 and 30 of 1994. The learned Judge was pleased to award compensation as per the table in Para 6 of the judgment. The learned Judge has also awarded interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the application i.e., 26-2-1994.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:2.1 The original claimants were the employees of one Abdulla Haji Ibrahim Bhayad, owner of the ship, who is original opponent No. 1. According to the claimants, they were working with opponent No. 1 and opponent No. 1 used to pay Rs. 1,000/- as salary per month to one Shri Ishaq Osman original claimant No. 1 and other claimants were getting Rs. 500/- per month. All these claimants boarded one ship bearing Registra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2008)2GLR1163
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh for petitioners, Mr. Sunit S. Shah, learned GP with Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Ms. Kiran Pandey and Mr. KJ Dwivedi, learned AGPs for the respondent State authority and Mr. Pranav G. Desai, learned Advocate for respondent Baroda Municipal Corporation.2. When these matters are taken up for hearing, learned advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitions involving same and identical question filed by the concerned employees of the respondent corporation but same have not been notified because of the office objections raised by the Registry and he requested before this Court to call for papers of those petitions and accordingly, considering his request, registry of this Court was directed to dispense with the office objections raised by the registry and to send papers of those petitions and therefore, registry has sent papers of Special Civil Application No. 327, 328, 330,331,332,333,334, 336,...
Tag this Judgment!