Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2000)3GLR787
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. In this petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner against whom C.R. No. I-38 of 2000 is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short hereinafter) as well as Section 25(1)(c) of the Arms Act ('the Act' for short hereinafter) with Sarkhej Police Station has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus to quash and set aside the resolution of the Government of Gujarat dated March 22, 2000 appointing Mr. K.J. Shethna, Advocate, as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting C.R. No. I-38 of 2000 at the District and Sessions Court of Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, Ahmedabad and High Court for bail and trial.2. It may be stated that by the said Government resolution, Mr. Rajendra Shirodkar and Mr. Adhik Shirodkar, advocates are also appointed to assist Mr. K.J. Shethna and, therefore, their appointments as such are also challenged.3. Earlier it was stipulated in the said resolution that Mr. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1979)1GLR71
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The following three substantial questions of law as formulated by this Court arise in this Second Appeal:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the suit instituted by the respondent was liable to be dismissed, so far as the claim made by the amended plaint was concerned, for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure?(2) Whether the lower Appellate Court was right in law in holding that the order dated August 28, 1968, Ex. 77, made by and in the name of the President by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, was not shown to have been made on valid authority?(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lower Appellate Court was right in law in holding that the order, Ex. 77, was void being in violation of the rules of natural justice?2. In order to appreciate the issues raised in the above questions, it would be profitable to advert shortly to a few facts which have ultimately resulted in this s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1965)6GLR934
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The question which arises in these Revision Applications is whether it is competent to a Judge of the City Civil Court to pass a conditional order when granting leave to defend under the provisions of Rule 142 Sub-rule (3) of the Ahmedabad City Civil Court Rules. The plaintiffs filed a suit being Summary Suit No. 1462 of 1962 against the defendants in the City Civil Court Ahmedabad to recover a sum of Rs. 32 0 alleged to be due by the defendants to the plaintiffs under certain promissory notes which the plaintiffs claimed had been executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit was filed as a Summary Suit and on the appearance being filed by the defendants a Summons for Judgment was taken out by the plaintiffs. On the Summons for Judgment the learned Judge granted unconditional leave to defend to the second defendant but so far as the first defendant was concerned the learned Judge made a conditional order granting leave to defend on c condition tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1995)1GLR889
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (hereafter mentioned as 'Constitution' for short) involves the consideration of the controversy concerning the recommendation of eligible persons made by the High Court in December 1994, for the appointments to the posts of District Judges and Ahmedabad City Civil Court Judges, under Article 233 of the Constitution. The petition contains mainly two grounds, namely, (a) the alleged denial of equal opportunity of being considered for the said offices under Article 16 of the Constitution; and (b) the recommendations allegedly not being made by the Full Court contrary to the requirement of Article 233. During the course of the arguments, two more grounds were also pressed, namely, (c) regarding the relevant rules being in derogation of the authority of the High Court under Article 233; and (d) regarding the procedure followed in the matter of actual selection.2. The petitioner is an Advocate practising in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1967)8GLR833
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These petitions raise an interesting question as to the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 1 of the Act came into force on 24th February 1962 and Sub-section (3) of Section 1 provided that the remaining provisions of the Act shall come into force on such date or dates as may be appointed by the State Government. 21st March 1963 was the date appointed by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred under Section 1 Sub-section (3) and the remaining provisions of the Act, therefore, came into force on that date. By an order made under Section 157 of the Act, the State Government transferred to the respective District Panchayats the powers, functions and duties exercised and performed by the Public Works Department of the State Government in various Divisions and Sub-divisions with effect from 1st April 1963. The Public Works Department consists of five wings, namely,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1991)2GLR798
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The common question which arises in both these petition is whether the Gujarat Education Cess (Validation) Act, 1977, which came into force on 24th January, 1978 is a valid piece of legislation. Therefore, at the request of the learned Advocates appearing in these petitions, they are heard together and they are now disposed of by this common judgment.2. Special Civil Application No. 2063 of 1978 is filed by owners of lands and buildings situated within the urban area of Junagadh Nagar Palika (now Municipality). Till April 1, 1975, Junagadh Municipality had not levied property tax on the lands and buildings situated within its area. It appears that pursuant to the direction given by the State Government under Section 15(1) of the Gujarat Education Cess Act, 1962 to the Collector of Junagadh, steps were taken by the Collector for collecting the education cess. Pursuant thereto the Mamlatdar, Junagadh issued demand notices in March and April 1978. Those notices were ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1994)2GLR1603
S.D. Shah, J1. These two petitions filed under Article 226 of cretary, Home Department (Special) dated 21st May, 1993 in Spl. Criminal Application No. 1311 of 1993 and dated 30th July, 1993 in Spl. Criminal Application No. 1473 of 1993. The orders are passed by one Mr. J.M. Parmar, Deputy Secretary, Home Department as appellate authority under Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the said Act and since an identical question of law is raised in both these petitions by Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, these petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. In Spl. Criminal Application No. 1311 of 1993, notice dated 15th June, 1992 was issued by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dholka, to the present petitioner under Section 59 of the said Act, informing the petitioner in writing of the general nature of material allegations against him and giving him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation reg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1996)3GLR387
S.D. Shah, J.1. This petition filed by a student seeking admission to Post Graduate course of M.D. (Ayurved) to the pioneer institution of Ayurvedic education in the entire country, namely, the Gujarat Ayurved University, Jamnagar, represented through its Dean, has brought to the surface a very sorry, sordid and dismal state of affairs prevailing in the institution of higher education. So gross are the lapses and lack of coordination on the part of the Gujarat Ayurved Univeristy and the Principal of Government Akhandanand Ayurved Mahavidyalaya at Ahmedabad that this Court cannot help observing that even institution of higher education makes mockery of meritocracy and toss the life of the student to a stage of uncertainty and ultimately helpless student knocked the door of the Court of law for justice. The interference of this Court in the matter of admissions to any course in educational institution is a matter of dislike and is adversely commented upon by the Apex Court of the country...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1996)2GLR478
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. These two petitions raise common questions and at the instance of all the learned Counsels they have been heard and decided together.The petitioners of these two petitions are Co-operative Societies, who have voiced a common grievance that the respondent Government has exceeded its authority in making nominations of three representatives on each of the Management Committees (i.e. the Boards of Directors) of these Societies under the provisions of Section 80(1) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The matters have been argued on the basis of the record of Special Civil Application No. 10206 of 1995 which contains the complete record and the Counsel for the parties in the other petition have referred to and relied upon this petition and have requested that the affidavits filed and the papers produced in Special Civil Application No. 10206 of 1995 should be read in the other petition also. The Counsel appearing in S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)2GLR1343
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. This group of appeals has been preferred by persons who were appointed as ad hoc lecturers pending the availability of the regular recruits through the Gujarat Public Service Commission (G.P.S.C. for short), to the post of Lecturer, Gujarat Educational Service, Class II, (Collegiate Branch), against the common judgment and order dated 15th July, 2002 passed by the learned single Judge allowing the Special Civil Application No. 2395 of 2001 and other cognate matters which were filed by the candidates selected through the G.P.S.C. as per the Recruitment Rules applicable to the said post and rejecting the Special Civil Application No. 4396 of 2001 and other cognate matters which were filed by the ad hoc appointees, who were required to be replaced by the G.P.S.C. selectees.2. In Special Civil Application No. 2395 of 2001 and its cognate matters which were filed by the direct selectees through the G.P.S.C., it was prayed that the petitioners should be appointed to th...
Tag this Judgment!