Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-08-2005
Reported in : AIR2005Guj257; I(2006)BC545; 2006(1)CTLJ195(NULL)
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. Appeal from order No. 130 of 2002 is at the instance of the original plaintiff in Civil Suit No.4068 of 2001, which has been filed against the order dated 23rd January 2002 passed by the City Civil Court below Application Exhibit 5 (Notice of Motion) in the Civil Suit No.4068 of 2001.2. Appeal from Order No.281 of 2002 has been filed against the order dated 23rd January 2002 passed by the City Civil Court below Application Exhibit 5 (Notice of Motion) in Civil Suit No.4068 of 2001. This appeal is at the instance of original defendant no.1 in the aforesaid suit.3. Since in both the appeals the challenge is against the very same order, both the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgement.4. M/s Adani Exports Limited (hereinafter referred to as AEL or plaintiff) had filed Civil Suit No.4068 of 2001 before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad against Marketing Services Incorporated (hereinafter referred to as MSI or defendant no.1), Abu Dhabi Commercia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-07-2005
Reported in : AIR2005Guj355; I(2006)BC321
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. The present Appeal from Order has been preferred against the order dated 29th December 2004 passed below Exhibits 5 and 23 in Civil Suit No. 459/2004 by learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vadodara whereby Application Exh.5 was partly rejected and injunction was refused against encashment of performance of security guarantee and Application Exh.23 was partly allowed.2. The present appellant M/s L & T Niro Limited (hereinafter referred to as L & TNL or appellant or plaintiff) filed Special Civil Suit No. 459/2004 in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vadodara, against The Mysore Paper Mills Ltd (hereinafter referred to as MPML or the respondent No. 1 or Defendant No. 1) and IDBI Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Bank or respondent No. 2 or defendant No. 2) praying as under:(a) that, pending the hearing and final disposal of this suit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a temporary injunction restraining Defendant No. 1, its officers a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-22-2005
Reported in : 2005CriLJ2957; (2005)1GLR709
J.N. Bhatt, J.Prelude (Focal Point)Let us at the very outset, evidently record, remember, and recollect that ;'A civilisation is judged by the way it treats its criminals.'1. In this group of criminal appeals, specially assigned to the Larger Bench by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the central theme, the core issue and the main point, in focus, has been, as to whether the trial Court, on being satisfied or in presence of special and adequate reasons peculiar to the accused, to be mentioned in writing, in the judgment of the Court, in finding accused guilty, 'for a first offence' either by evidence or 'by raising the plea of guilty'; is competent to impose for such 'first offence';(i) a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months and fine of less than Five Hundred Rupees for the offence punishable under the proviso to Sub-clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the 'Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949'. (B. P. Act')?And(ii) a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-14-2005
Reported in : (2006)2GLR995
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Mukesh Patel for petitioners-Union of India and others and Ms. Nita C. Banker for respondent original petitioner.2. In this petition, petitioners, Union of India and others have challenged order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench dated 8-10-2003 in O.A. No. 553 of 1999 with M.A. No. 506 of 1999. Original petitioner-present respondent, being aggrieved by order of the disciplinary authority imposing penalty of removal from service and non-disposal of his representations dated 27-6-1996 and 27-8-1997 by appellate authority, preferred O.A. on 4-6-1998. It was registered on 20-8-1999. Thereafter, O.A. was amended in April, 2003 to challenge order of appellate authority dated 23-8-1996 rejecting appeal of original petitioner-employee. Prayer was made for quashing order passed by disciplinary authority and appellate authority.3. Case of the employee was that he was appointed as inquiry-cum-reservation clerk and training was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-16-2005
Reported in : (2005)3GLR2005
Kshitij R. Vyas, J.1. The convict-appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.7.1996 passed in Sessions Case No.337/95 by the learned Addl.City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City, convicting him for offences punishable under section 302 of IPC and under section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act awarding sentence to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rupees Five thousand. In default to undergo R.I. for one month for offence under section 302 of IPC and to pay fine of Rupees five hundred for the offence under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. In default, to undergo further R.I. for one month.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:The accused was tried for committing murder of deceased Jayesh Chudasma (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). The incident had taken place on 31.1.1995 at about 7 or 7.30 p.m. on the public road near the petrol pump in the area of Naroda in the City of Ahmedabad. The decea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : May-12-2005
Reported in : (2005)3GLR2152; (2006)ILLJ587Guj
ORDERS FOR CONTINGENT EMPLOYEES OF THE OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION' in force since 15.7.1962 applied to all workmen called 'contingent employees' employed in various units of the ONGC excluding the regular employees to whom other statutory rules applied. Relevant Clause 2 of those Standing Orders reads as under:'2. (i) Classification of workmen: The contingent employees of the Commission shall hereafter be classified as:(a) temporary.(b) casual.(ii) A workmen who has been on the rolls of the Commission and has put in not less than 180 days of attendance in any period of 12 consecutive months shall be a temporary workman, provided that a temporary workman who has put in not less than 240 days of attendance in any period of 12 consecutive months and who possesses minimumqualifications prescribed by the Commission may be considered for conversion as regular employee.(iii) A workman who is neither temporary nor regular shall be considered as 'casual workman'.The Standing Orders also pro...
Tag this Judgment!