Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-04-1997
Reported in : AIR1997Guj177
K.R. Vyas, J.1. Admit.2. With the consent of the learned Advocates, these appeals were taken up for final hearing.3. The appellants in both these appeals are original defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and No. 3, respectively, (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants Nos. 1, 2, and 3') and the respondent No. 1 in both these appeals is the original plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') in Civil Suit No. 161 of 1996 pending on the file of the Court of the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Valsad.4. In the suit, the plaintiffs has claimed that it has invented a new process for manufacturing Aluminium Phosphide ('AIP' for short) and Zinc Phosphide ('ZnP' for short) by substituting while/ yellow phosphorous for red phosphorous by conducting trial, experiment and research for a long period and is, therefore, entitled to a declaration that the plaintiff is exclusively entitled to the right, like to and interest in the new process invented by it and also for a permanent injunction against t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-19-1997
Reported in : [1995]95CompCas663(Guj)
..... securities. obviously, when the acquisition of securities and its disposal of such securities as per the directions to restore status quo is the basic requirement of clause (d), one cannot accept the contention of mr. raval that the securities here must mean to include proceeds of securities. securities have been defined to mean under clause 2(1)(b) as securities defined under section 2 of the securities (contracts) regulation act, 1956. under section 2 of the securities (contracts) regulation act, 1956, securities ..... words are semantically ambiguous, or if a provision, if read literally, is patently incompatible with the other provisions of that instrument, the court would be justified ..... traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the court ...' 39. it further observed (page 717 of 4 scc) : '... in determining the ..... considered to be an undue or unlawful much less unjust enrichment at the cost of someone or adverse to the interest for whose benefit such profit must ..... raised. 53. in the like circumstances in l. hirday narain v. ito : [1970]78itr26(sc) , it was expressed by the supreme court that where the petitioner files ..... act, 1969, parliament clearly stated two things, firstly, that the laws specified in the schedule shall be and shall be deemed always to have been, as valid as if the provisions contained therein had been enacted by parliament and secondly that they shall be deemed to be valid as if the provisions contained therein had been enacted by parliament. 150 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-20-1997
Reported in : (1998)1GLR374
1. The petitioners have assailed the validity and legality of the award, dated March 11, 1991, recorded by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar, in Reference (L.C.B.) No. 9 of 1989 which came to be published on May 3, 1991. 2. Both the petitioners are trusts and charitable institutions. One of the activities of the trust is to run a medical centre known as T.M. Vadodaria Medical Centre at Botad, which has a capacity of 50 beds. Both the trusts are registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Petitioner No. 2 Trust has undertaken the management and administration of the said medical centre and hospital at Botad under an agreement dated January 16, 1992. Pursuant to the said agreement, liabilities prior to the date of agreement will be that of Petitioner No. 1 Trust. The impugned award of the Labour Court is challenged by both the petitioners. By the said award, the Labour Court has directed the Petitioner No. 1 to pay the wages in accordance with 4th Pay Commission Recommendation as also other...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-30-1997
Reported in : 1998ACJ1003; (1997)3GLR736
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. By this appeal the appellant, original opponent No. 3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., has questioned legality and validity of the judgment and award dated 24.12.1996 delivered in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 336 of 1992 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar.2. The main question which has come up before us for consideration and adjudication in this appeal is 'whether the vehicular accident in question could be said to have occurred in a 'public place' as defined under Section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (new Act)?'3. In order to examine and appreciate the main question, we would like to highlight skeleton projection of the facts. The respondent No. 1 Gujarat Ship Trading Corporation which is the original claimant 'Corporation' by filing the aforesaid claim petition claimed Rs. 2,58,000/- under Section 166 of the new Act, and, inter alia, contended that the goods belonging to it came to be damaged on account of rash and negligent use of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-11-1997
Reported in : (1998)1GLR166
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The matter was called out for hearing in the first round and second round in the first sitting and third round in the second sitting. None appeared on behalf of the petitioners.2. From 23-12-1996 the matter has been adjourned only on the ground that the Counsel for the petitioners does not remain present. On 4th April, 1997 the matter came up for hearing, but none was present on behalf of the petitioners. Therefore, the petition was ordered to stand over beyond vacation. Then it has come up for hearing on 8th July. 1997. However, none put appearance on behalf of the petitioners. Still, one more indulgence was granted in the interest of justice. Today, again, the position remains the same.3. Perused the Special Civil Application and heard the learned Counsel for the respondents.4. Petitioner No. 1 is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. Petitioner No. 2 is its President. The name of the Society is, 'Sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-17-1997
Reported in : (1998)1GLR61
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This is a Public Interest Litigation filed at the instance of Lok Adhikar Sangh, a human rights organisation claims to be committed to the defence and protection of civil liberties and democratic rights of the people, and particularly of the poor and downtrodden in the State of Gujarat. The petition has been filed on behalf of Smt. Ushaben Satishbhai Punjani, whose husband Satishbhai Punjani alleged to have been brutally beaten by respondent No. 2 Jitendra Rajgor, District Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar, as a result of which the said Satishbhai Punjani died.2. The say of the petitioner is that on 8-1 -1992, the police picked up the deceased Satishbhai along with two others, namely, Bakul and Narsinh and took them to the police station for interrogation. At the police station, at about 9 p.m., respondent No. 2 came and he called all the three in his chamber. It is alleged that during interrogation, said Shri Rajgor gave them beating with big stick. First Bakul was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-19-1997
Reported in : (1998)2GLR1009
S.D. Pandit, J. 1. These two appeals are preferred against the judgment of the learned single Judge in S.C.A. No. 1921 of 1996 decided on 8-8-1996. As the respondent in both these appeals is one and the same and as the respondent-petitioner has sought relief jointly against both the appellants before This Court and as both the appeals are preferred against one and the same judgment, we are disposing of both these appeals by this common judgment. The respondent Parmar Jadavji Dhanaji (hereinafter referred to as respondent-Parmar) is an unemployed citizen of India and is holding a diploma in Mechanical Engineering and T.V. Engineering. He applied for retail dealership in petroleum products of the Indian Oil Corporation ('I.O.C.' for short) the appellant in L.P.A. No. 1056 of 1996 in pursuance of its advertisement dated 24-8-1976. The appellant I.O.C. on 15-11-1976 selected the petitioner for putting up a retail outlet by its letter dated 15-11-1976 for putting up a retail outlet at Kotha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-03-1997
Reported in : (1999)IIILLJ1162Guj
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. The petitioner, an Officer of the United Bank of India, filed this Special Civil Application before this Court and challenge has been made thereunder to the order annexure 'G' dated December 29, 1986, of the Assistant General Manager (Personnel), disciplinary authority, under which he was ordered to be dismissed from the services on a misconduct which was found proved against him in an inquiry held. The petitioner has also challenged the order, annexure 'I' dated June 19, 1987, of the appellate authority, the respondent No. 2 herein, under which the appeal filed by him against the order of dismissal has also been dismissed.2. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet, vide memo dated November 15, 1982 of the disciplinary authority. As many as eight charges were there against the petitioner. He was served with another charge-sheet, vide memo dated July 14, 1983 of the disciplinary authority under which there were as many as six charges. The charges against th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-05-1997
Reported in : AIR1998Guj1
ORDERR. Balia, J. 1. This petition is filed by one Becharbhai V. Patel for issuing a mandamus to the respondents to allot land to the petitioner on Saputara Hill Station and to treat the petitioner on par with other persons who have been allotted land on Saputara Hill Station on the basis of the Government Resolution of 1970.2. A few facts in the present petition may be noted. An application was moved by the petitioner, describing himself as organizer of Divya Land Development Corporation for allotment of land to the proposed society named as Preyas Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Saputara, District Dang for the purpose of constructing row houses and bangalows therein. As the name of Corporation suggests, the petitioner is engaged in business of construction of buildings. The application was for an estimated land admeasuring 12000 to 15000 sq. yards without specifying the exact plot of land or exact Measure or class of plot in respect of which allotment was sought. When the allotm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-08-1997
Reported in : (1997)3GLR2507
S.D. Shah, J.1. The petitioner is the defendant-tenant against whom the respondent-landlord filed the suit for eviction being Reg. Civil Suit No. 129 of 1983 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) at Rajpipla, who decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiffs and in the Regular Civil Appeal No. 85 of 1986 preferred in the Court of Extra Assistant Judge, Broach he partially allowed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 30th July, 1992 by holding that the respondent-plaintiffs were entitled to recover possession of the suit premises under Section 13(1)(1) of Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act', and set partially aside the decree of the trial Court while reversing the judgment and order of the trial Court for decree for possession on the ground available under Sections 13(l)(b) and 13(l)(g) of the said Act. Shortly speaking the learned Extra Assistant Judge at Broach confirmed the decree for possession in favour of responden...
Tag this Judgment!