Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1997)3GLR279
H.R. Shelat, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31st December 1996, passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad, allowing respondent's (judgment creditor) application (Exh.53) and issuing possession warrant directing the appellant-third party to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of two rooms and open chowk land on the ground floor and whole of the first floor of the building called 'Vijay Villa' situated to the East of Maninagar Railway Crossing and near the Vandana Park Society, in Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as `the suit premises') owned by deceased-Dr. Patrick Motilal Kelly-the judgment debtor to the Court Commissioner; and rejecting the obstruction application (Exh.49) preferred by the appellant in Execution Petition No. 495 of 1994, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Rule 103 Order 21 r/w. Sec. 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. The chequered history may be stated so as to appreciate the rival contentions.2. Dr. Patrick Motilal K...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1998)1GLR850
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of Constitution to challenge orders passed by the Industrial Court at Vadodara. These petitions raise the following question :- When an employer chooses to dismiss or discharge his employees without giving them an opportunity of being heard and when the employees challenge that order by raising a dispute in the Labour Court, whether during the pendency of that proceeding, the employees would be entitled to receive an amount equivalent to the subsistence allowance. 2. The facts leading to these two petitions are as follows :- The first petitioner in both these petitions is a Co-operative Bank operating in the local area of Vadodra city. The second and petitioner is its Manager. The relationship between the first petitioner Bank and its employees is governed under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'B.I.R. Act, 1946'). 3. The respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1999)3GLR743
ORDERHeard ld. counsel for the appellants.This appeal has been filed under Sec. 54 of the L and Acq.Act read with Sec. 96 of the C.P. Code by the State challenging the impugned award passed by the District Court under Sec. 18 of the said Act.The impugned judgment, taken in it overall perspective, is in our opinion, not assailable. We agree with the assessment of the evidence on the part of the Reference Court, conclusions drawn therefrom and the findings of fact recorded.The Reference Court has relied upon its decision in a group of L and Acq. Cases decided under Sec. 18 of the said Act, the judgment whereof is at Exh. 11 in the record of the present reference. There is no dispute that it is a comparable instance. The only contention raised is that the location of two villages in question is different or that the same are located at some distance from each other. Only technically this may seem to be true, but that by itself does not make the same not comparable nor would it result in a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2000Guj45; (2000)2GLR1036
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. This group of petitions raises the question whether a local authority can impose a condition while issuing a trade licence that the trade or its operation which in the opinion of the Commissioner, is dangerous to health, life or property or likely to create nuisance either from its nature or by reason of the manner in which or the conditions under which the same is or is proposed to be carried on, can be carried on only in an industrial zone, thereby prohibiting such trade or operation to be carried on in other areas including residential areas.2. In this set of three petitions, the lead matter being Special Civil Application No. 2490 of 1999 has been filed by thirty three petitioners against the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Deputy Health Officer of the Corporation and the State of Gujarat, seeking a direction on the respondents to renew the licences of the petitioners as required under the provisions of The Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2002Guj59
B.C. Patel, J. 1. This petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation as fire safety system was not provided to prevent accidents in cinema halls, factories and high-rise buildings. The petitioner sought for several directions including to take action against erring officers, who are responsible for gross violation of rules and regulations and to direct the respondents to create an independent machinery as also for mandatory agency representing various Sections of the people to monitor working of the fire safety measures. Initially, the Division Bench (Coram : R. A. Mehta, Actg. C.J. & N. N. Mathur, J.) issued notice on 1-7-1997, returnable on 21-7-1997. Thereafter, on 4-9-1997, the Court (Coram: R. A. Mehta, Actg. C.J. & N. N. Mathur, J.) considered the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent admitting the fact that there are large number of high-rise buildings within the municipal limits, which are said to be without the required fire safety and fire prevention equipments. Thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2000CriLJ3546; (2000)2GLR1
M.S. Parikh, J.1. By judgment and order dated 9/12/1998 learned Single Judge (Coram : H.R. Shelat, J.) proposed Reference in following terms to a Larger Bench :-'From what day the period of 15 days envisaged by Sec. 138(c) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 begins to run, whether on and from the date of the service of the notice is effected or excluding the day on which the service of notice is effected ?' That is how the present Reference is before this Court in the context of following brief facts :-2. The appellant (the complainant) came in contact with 1st respondent (the accused) since they were hailing from the same community. The 1st respondent had a talk about the job, the appellant was seeking for. At that time the 1st respondent was in need of money. Initially Rs. 15,000/- came to be advanced on 18/5/1989. Rs. 20,000/- were again paid on 25/5/1989 and since he was in need of money Rs. 35,000/- were again advanced to him on 25/7/1989. He did not return the amount back as prom...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)2GLR1248
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties.By means of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner-Surat Mahila Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited [hereinafter referred to as, 'the petitioner-Bank'] seeks to challenge the order passed by the Labour Court, Surat in T-Application No. 249 of 1992 under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 [hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'] dated 11th February, 1998 wherein the Labour Court has granted reinstatement of respondent-workman in service with continuity and full back wages with consequential benefits and costs of Rs. 500. The said Award of the Labour Court dated llth February, 1998 was challenged by the petitioner-Bank before the Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Appeal (IC) No. 2 of 1998. While dismissing the said appeal, the Tribunal vide Order dated 31st August, 1999 has confirmed the order passed by the Labour Court dated 11th February, 1998. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)2GLR1315
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Learned Advocate Mr. P. H. Pathak is appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Advocate Mr. M. R. Shall is appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and learned Advocate Mr. Bipin Mehta is appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.2. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by Desk Officer dated 16-04-1998 under Section 12, sub-clause (5) of the I. D. Act, 1947. The petitioner has challenged the termination order by way of raising industrial dispute under the provisions of I. D. Act, 1947. The challenge of the petitioner is that the termination order is violating Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the I. D. Act. On the basis of the dispute raised by the petitioner, conciliation proceedings were initiated and ultimately a Failure Report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer dated 25-2-1998 and after receiving the same from the Conciliation Officer, the Ministry of Labour has examined the said dispute on 16-4-1998 and come to the conc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2001(88)FLR561]; (2001)GLR74
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. In the present petition, rule has been issued by this Court on 21st April, 1988 and by way of ad-interim direction, the operation and the implementation of order Annexure-III dated 18th March, 1988 is stayed. 2. Suspension is dismissal mitigated at the discretion of the employer by a promise to re-employ. 3. The principles of natural justice are easy to proclaim but their precise extent is far less easy to define. 4. The rule against basis is one thing. The right to be heard is another. Those two rules are essential characteristics of what is often called natural justice. They are the twin pillars supporting it. The Romans put them in the two maxims : Nemo Judex in Causa Suo : and Audi Alteram Partem. They have recently been put in the two words : Impartiality and Fairness. But they are separate concepts and are governed by separate consideration. 5. One of the great principles of civilized jurisdiction which is a part of the law in Britain and which has been adopted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)2GLR964
ORDER: Delay condoned. Heard. The special leave petitions are dismissed.' (v) Special Civil Application No. 7372 of 1999 was then filed by Halar Utkarsha Samiti against B.O.R.L. by way of Public Interest Litigation challenging the action/proposed action on the part of the respondents allowing setting up a huge pipeline through the declared Marine Sanctuary and a mandamus was sought for setting aside the decision which was about to be taken by the respondent No. 1 to permit B.O.R.L. to lay the pipeline as per the modified Route 2A passing through the reserved forest and Marine Sanctuary in the Gulf of Kachchh. This Special Civil Application was decided by the Division Bench (Coram: R. K. Abichandani & D. H. Waghela, JJ.) on 10th December, 1999 (page Nos. 48 to 61 of the paper as Annexure-A4 in Special Civil Application No. 1778 of 2000). Paras14. 15, 17 and 19 of this judgment arc reproduced as under : '14. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that there will not be any scop...
Tag this Judgment!