Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1996)2GLR515
S.D. Shah, J.1. In this Civil Revision Application against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD) at Dhoraji at Exh. 185 in RCS No. 254 of 1985 insofar as it granted adjournment only on imposing condition of costs, no serious challenge is raised before this Court. To that extent the order is upheld and C.R.A. stands rejected.2. It is not necessary to hear the other side while considering the second request made to this Court. It is a matter between this Court and the serious remarks made by the learned Judge in his order against practising advocate at Dhoraji. The observations made which are stated herein in extenso are undoubtedly directed against the senior advocate and various practices allegedly adopted by the senior advocate for delaying the proceedings of every suit. The learned judge has made reference to the practice being constantly followed by the senior advocate and has passed certain strictures or adverse remarks against the conduct of the senior advocate which ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)4GLR635
R.M. Doshit, J.1. This Revision Application arises from the judgment and order dated 26th December, 1994 passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1991. The petitioners before this Court are the Appellants-Plaintiffs.2. The plaintiffs instituted H.R.P Suit No. 920 of 1983 in the Court of Small Causes, Ahmedabad for decree for recovery of possession of the suit premises. The suit premises is a room in a residential house named as 'Sahajanand Bhuvan' situated at Maninagar, Ahmedabad. The plaintiffs claimed recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground, inter alia, of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed that they had a large family of themselves and two grown-up sons; one of them was a married son with a family of his own. The plaintiffs and all their family members were residing in the same building in two rooms; that having regard to the number of members of their ...
Tag this Judgment!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
Reported in : [2008(116)FLR579]; (2008)IILLJ274Guj
R.S. Garg, J.1. Pranav G. Desai, learned Counsel for the petitioners; Nilesh A. Pandya, learned Counsel for the respondent.The petitioners being aggrieved by the order/award dated February 21, 2000 passed by the Industrial Court No. 3 in Reference (I.T.) No. 2/99, are before this Court with a submission that the award made by the Industrial Court is patently illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside.2. The short facts necessary for disposal of the present writ application are that the petitioner bank, in accordance with the service rules, issued a charge sheet upon the respondent workman, wherein, various allegations were made. After receiving the charge sheet, the respondent workman pleaded guilty but however, prayed for clemency and mercy. The bank, after taking lenient view, however, without any inquiry, directed; 'to condone your misconduct and discharge from services in the bank with immediate effect protecting your terminal benefits as a very special case.' The respondent,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2007(114)FLR1134]
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Learned Advocate Mr. R.V. Desai appearing on behalf of applicant-original respondent and learned Advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave appearing on behalf of present opponent-original petitioner.Learned Advocate Mr. Dave made a mention that learned Advocate life Desai is not well/therefore; he left the Court. Even though, this Court has taken up this application for hearing because presence of learned Advocate Mr. Desai is not much relevant as averments made in the application are sufficient to consider thin application by this Court while examining the matter for Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The important is the answer which is given by the respondent who is present before this Court and I have heard learned Advocate Mr. Dave appearing on behalf of present opponent - original petitioner.2. In main Special Civil Application No. 16640 of 2004, the petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Kalol, District Mehsana in Perence (L.C.M.) No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: Jayant Patel, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Suit No.4 of 2012, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the application and has issued direction that the defendant appellant herein, his servants, agents, dealers and distributors are restrained by order of temporary injunction from manufacturing, marketing and using the registered design of Ductable air-conditioners of the plaintiffs, till the final decision of the suit or till such time as the registration thereof remains intact. 2. The short facts can be described in the same manner, as was considered by the learned Single Judge at paragraph 5 of the impugned order, as under:- 1. The plaintiffs, namely Mr.Paresh D.Patel (plaintiff No.1) and Vardayini Power Private Limited (plaintiff No.2) filed Regular Civil Suit No.96 of 2012 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad, praying for grant of a permanent injunction restraining t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: G.B. Shah, J. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.5.2009 passed by respondent No.3 by which the petitioner was terminated from the service. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was selected and recruited as Constable by the respondents after following all the due procedures including medical examination. Vide order dated 30.4.2008, the Chief Security Commissioner, Western Railway Head Quarter-respondent No.3, he was sent for initial training. It is the case of the petitioner that he was never asked whether any prosecution was launched against him. While undergoing training at the training institute, the petitioner was asked to fill in an attestation form dated 2.5.2008 in which in answer to the column Have you ever been prosecuted? and Is any case pending against you in any court of law at the time of filling up of this Attestation Form?, he answered both the questions in 'negative'. After submission of the At...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Cav Judgment: 1. Admit. Learned advocate Mr. Dilip L. Kanojiya waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondents. 1.1 Heard learned advocate Mr. J. T. Trivedi for the appellant and learned senior counsel Mr. S. R. Sanjanwala with learned advocate Mr. Dilip L. Kanojia for all the respondents. 2. Pursuant to order dated 29.11.2013, parties have produced compilation of relevant papers and made submissions for final disposal of the appeal. 3. The appellant is original plaintiff; whereas respondents are original defendants before the Civil Court at Valsad, camp @ Vapi in Special Civil Suit No. 17 of 2011. In such suit, plaintiff has prayed for specific performance to agreement to sell dated 10.01.1981 and possession receipt dated 25.12.1982 with alternative relief of declaration that because of suit property is in possession of the plaintiff since the year 1981 - 1982 it amounts to an adverse possession for more than 30 years with a permanent injunction as restraining the defen...
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!