Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)4GLR154
R.K. Abichandani, Adv.1. These Letters Patent Appeals have been directed against the common judgment and Order dated 1st August 1989 passed by the learned Single Judge in a group of petitions in which the petitioners had challenged the Orders of their dismissal from service passed by the respondent Surat Municipal Corporation and the decision of the Standing Committee confirming the orders. Special Civil Application No. 7110 of 1997 was filed by the Surat Municipal Employees (Staff) Union and the other petitions were filed by individual employees amongst the members of the said Union.2. Due to the outbreak of pneumonic plague in the city of Surat, the Municipal Commissioner, after getting appropriate sanction from the State Government to take special measures, gave a call through public notices to the employees of the Municipal Corporation to report for work in view of the emergency situation created by the dangerous disease and issued a warning that defaulters will be dismissed. Some ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
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!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1996)3GLR823
S.M. Soni, J.1. Petitioner-detenu, being branded as a bootlegger as defined in Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 ('PASA Act' for short), has challenged the order of detention dated 7-8-1995 passed by the respondent No. 1 in exercise of power under Section 3(2) of PASA Act with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, as his activities are likely to or deem to affect adversely the public health. On the order being served, petitioner was also served with the grounds of detention with necessary documents relied on by the authority to record subjective satisfaction.2. To brand the petitioner as a bootlegger, the authority has relied on as many as six cases registered under the Bombay Prohibition Act, of which three are pending in Court and three are pending investigation. He was also supplied with necessary documents referred in the grounds, which according to the authority, were reli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2006[3]STR497
Anil R. Dave, J.1. Rule Service of rule is waived by Standing Counsel Shri Yogesh Ravani for the respondents.2. Looking to the facts of the case, the learned advocates have agreed for final hearing of the petition and therefore the petition has been finally heard today.3. The petitioner has challenged the validity of a demand notice dated 29.6.2005 issued by the Superintendent of Service Tax, Range-V Division I, Ahmedabad - respondent No. 4 herein. By virtue of the said demand notice, the petitioner has been called upon to pay the service tax on Rs. 95,68,683/- @ 8% which comes to Rs. 7,65,475/- and interest on the said amount.13. Though a show-cause notice has been challenged in the petition and in normal circumstances, the Court would have disposed of the petition on the ground that it is premature, looking to the facts of the case, in our opinion, it requires some consideration and, therefore, we dispose of the same by giving certain directions.4. The question involved in the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1982)26CTR(Guj)209; [1982]138ITR143(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J. 1. At the instance of the accountable person for the estate of the deceased, one Maniben Shivlal, the following three questions have been referred to us under s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Bombay Amendment) Act, 1948, were not relevant in determining the value of the land as on the death of the deceased as the said Act had been declared void from its inception by the Supreme Court 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the words 'if sold' in section 36(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, create a fictional position under which the Tribunal had to assumes and proceed to value the property on the basis that there was an open market the land in question could be sold 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1996)2GLR297
M.R. Calla, J.1. The petitioner is a qualified Doctor and in the year 1971, he was working as Incharge Medical Officer, Sajod Primary Health Centre. That a complaint was made against him that one Shri Natvarlal, a boy aged eight years was suffering from diarrhoea and vomitting and the said boy was taken to the Primary Health Centre, Sajod, around 10-00 to 10-30 p.m. on 30th August 1971. That the petitioner did not examine the said boy-patient and instead, asked the Sanitary Inspector to give the medicines from Epidemic Store. The petitioner did not examine the patient though the relative of the patient suspected cholera and had informed the petitioner accordingly. The condition of the said boy went on deteriorating and again around 3.00 a.m. after mid-night, the petitioner was requested to visit the said boy and to examine the patient. The petitioner refused to do so and directed the Sanitary Inspector ('S.I.' for short) Shri Jadav to visit the patient and to administer certain injecti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2001(91)FLR660]; (2001)2GLR1626; (2001)IILLJ1007Guj
B.C. Patel, J.1. Learned single Judge of this Court has referred this matter to a Larger Bench. Hence, this matter is placed before this Bench in view of the Order passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.2. The petitioner approached this Court by filing the aforesaid petition inter alia contending that the petitioner was serving as a Primary Teacher under the respondent-Board (Ahmedabad Municipal School Board). The petitioner joined on 8-7-1947 as a primary teacher and retired on 30th November, 1982. It is contended that the petitioner was entitled to gratuity under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on her retirement. She was paid a sum of Rs. 9,618-25 as per the rules in force at the relevant time. However, the petitioner has claimed that the petitioner was entitled to a larger sum of Rs. 19,573-80 under the provisions of the Act and not Rs. 9618-25. Since the amount was not paid in full according to the petitioner, an application was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1988)1GLR679
D.H. Shukla, J.1. The petitioner, V.I. Khalifa of Surendranagar, has filed the present Special Civil Application, for the issuance of a writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of his dismissal, dated 17-5-1985, and confirmed on 10-3-1986. The copies of the two orders are at Annexures 'A' and 'C to the petition.2. The facts shortly stated are that the petitioner joined as a Peon with the Surendranagar District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Patdi Branch, in the year 1961. Since then he was working as a Peon at Patdi Branch, till 10-6-1985, when he was posted as a Peon at the Limdi Branch of the Bank. The petitioner was a Class IV servant drawing a salary of Rs. 648/-and D.A. with House Rent Allowance etc., per month. On 17-5-1985, the petitioner was served with an order dismissing him from service on the ground that he had intentionally remained on leave without pay for more days than allowable under settlement, which leave without pay was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1993)1GLR321
S. Nainar Sundaram, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 2098 of 1986. The respondents in the Special Civil Application are the appellants in the Letters Patent Appeal and the petitioner in the Special Civil Application is the respondents in the Letters Patent Appeal. Convenience suggests that we adopt the nomenclature assigned to the parties in the Special Civil Application while we deal with them in the course of this order of ours.2. The petitioner, who was working as a Supervisor with the respondents, was ousted from service, by proceedings dated 14-9-1984. The preceding facts can be recapitulated as follows:The petitioner worked upto 27-1-1981. From the day next onwards, he proceeded on leave, without having the same sanctioned. However, on 3-2-1981, the petitioner sent his leave report and there he indicated that he will resume work on and from 1-3-1981. No proceeding reflecting the reaction o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2000)3GLR2586
J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. Whether, the appellants are guilty and responsible for the, ghastly and macabre, killing of deceased Girish Namdar or not, is the central theme, in this conviction appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (Cr.P.C.) challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 28.12.94, recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City, in Sessions Case No.190/93.2. Under the impugned judgment and order, the appellants, who are, original accused persons have been held guilty under section 302, 120-B, 452, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IP Code) and section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act. The appellants, who are, original accused persons, for the sake of convenience, are hereinafter, referred, to as accused Nos.1 to 3, as originally arraigned in sessions case. Accused No.1, Rajesh, (A-1) is ordered to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo 10 days further rigourous imprisonment f...
Tag this Judgment!