Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2002(92)FLR919]
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr.C.H.Vora appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms.Shraddha Trivedi, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 so also Mr.Jayesh Barot, learned advocate for Mr.H.S.Munshaw on behalf of the respondent No.3. Though notice of Rule has been served on the respondent No.2 but no one remained present on behalf of the respondent No.2.2. In the present petition, Rule has been issued by this Court on 19th December, 1991 and interim relief was refused by this Court on 17th February, 1992. Affidavit-in-reply are filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 3, whereas no reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.2.3. It is most pertinent to note that this is a case of gross exploitation of the employee who is working as a Watchman with the respondent authorities. The facts of this case shows that the petitioner has been appointed as Watchman by the respondent No.3 by order dated 1st July, 1974 on temporary basis. A copy of the appoi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2002)4GLR3294
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. What is challenged in these two petitions which are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are two Orders, both dated November 23, 2001 and issued by the Director (Sugar), Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, removing the petitioners as Directors of the Vadodara District Co-operative Sugarcane Growers Union Limited and Sardar Co-operative Sugar Industries Limited ('the Societies' for short) and appointing respondent Nos. 4 to 15 as Directors of the Societies as per Bye-laws Nos. 21(2)(A) and 8(B)(1) of both the respective Societies.2. As both these petitions involve determination of common questions of facts and law, by the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, the matters are taken up for final hearing and I propose to dispose them of by this common Judgment.3. In Order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, it would be advantageous to refer to the facts stated in Special Civil Application No. 11098 of 2001.4. The averments ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)1GLR205
ORDER(a) Trial SessionsAgainst accused No. 1Acquittal from all chargesCourt Judge, Arareli-Dist.Against accused No. 2Acquittal 'Against accused No. 3Acquittal '(b) Division Mr. R. K. Bench Abichandani, J.Against accused No. 1Conviction and sentence under Sec. 302 read with 34of I.P.C.Against accused No. 2Conviction and sentence under Sec. 302 of I.P.C.Against accused No. 3Conviction and sentence under Sec. 302 read with 34of I.P.C.Mr. K. R.Against All Vyas, J.Acquittal from all charges25-1-2002(J. N. Bhatt, J.)Since the accused persons are not present today and they are required to be heard on the question of quantum of punishment as mandated in law under Sec. 235(2) Cr.P.C., request made by the learned Advocates appearing for the accused persons for adjournment for the purpose of hearing the accused persons on the quantum of punishment is accepted and the matter is now posted on 8th February 2002, as requested.25-1-2002 (J. N. Bhatt, J.)Design And Desideratum Of Hearing As Mandated Un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2002)3GLR74
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Precious Carrying Corporation Pvt. Ltd., & others, petitioners have filed this petition with a prayer that respondent No. 1-Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, Gandhinagar, respondent No. 2-Director of Prohibition, Ahmedabad, and respondent No. 3-Co!lector of Central Excise and Customs, Ahmedabad be restrained from interfering with the trucks owned by the first petitioner and or hired by them from passing through the territory of Gujarat with liquor-loaded therein for the purpose of delivery thereof in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioners also challenged the validity of Rule 10 of the Gujarat Through Transport Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') on the ground that said rule do not impose reasonable restrictions nor restrictions are in public interest and even on this ground the said Rules violate the guarantee of free trade, commerce throughout the territory of India as guaranteed by Article 301 of the Constitution of India.2. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2002)2GLR1807
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Shah for the petitioner. By way of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the award made by the Industrial Tribunal at Nadiad in Reference (IT) No. 456 of 1998 (Old No. 393 of 1994) dated 8th August, 2001 wherein the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad has granted benefit of permanency with all consequential benefits to the Off-Day Reliever Watchman with effect from 14th October, 1994 and from the date of completion of 240 days from the date of initial appointment and retirement benefits were also ordered to be granted by the Tribunal.2. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah has submitted that the written statement to the statement of claim was filed by the petitioner-Corporation wherein it was contended that the appointment of the respondent-workman was back-door entry since he was not selected by the selection committee in accordance with the recruitment procedure and service rules of the S.T. Corporation and on that basis, it was contended before the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)4GLR3381
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Munshaw for the petitioner. Notice of Rule issued by this Court has been served upon the respondents but the respondents have not remained present before this Court either in person or through any Advocate. Hence, the matter has been taken up for hearing in their absence.2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 2-5-2000 passed by the Labour Court, Amreli in Reference (L.C.A.) No. 16 of 1998 whereunder the workmen herein were ordered to be made permanent with effect from 1-1-1991. However, the Labour Court has clarified that the workmen were not to be given any financial benefits arising out of the permanency granted with effect from 1-1-1991, and thus, it has been ordered that the period from 1-1-1991 till the date of the decision be treated as notional.3. During the course of hearing, learned Advocate Mr. Munshaw appearing for the petitioner has submitted that industrial dispute was raised by the respondents about ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)1GLR45; [2003]47SCL107(Guj)
C.K. Buck, J. 1. The original petitioner-Virat Engineering Private Ltd. has taken out this Judges Summons with a prayer that the order dated 31-1-1995 passed by this Court in Company Petition No. 51 of 1990 dismissing the petition under Rule 31 of Company Court Rules be reviewed and the company petition be refixed for hearing on merits. It is also simultaneously prayed that any other and further relief as this Court deems fit, just and proper also may be granted. 2. This Judges Summons is taken by Mrs. Soparkar learned Counsel for the applicant and supported by the affidavit of her clerk Mr. Yogesh R. Patel. The copy of the Judges Summons was served to Mr. A. C. Gandhi learned Counsel for the opponent-Company. For the sake of convenience and to appreciate the rival contentions raised before this Court, the order sought to be reviewed by the applicant (ori. petitioner) is reproduced as under : 'On 10-1-1995 by a common order along with other matters, this matter was also notified on a s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2002)3GLR509
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. What is obvious is always known and what is known is not always present. . John Preface Dictionary. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. D.C. Raval for Mr. M.R. Anand Sr. Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. K.M. Patel, learned Advocate on behalf the respondent. 2. In the present case, the petitioners have challenged the order of termination passed by the respondent with a prayer to reinstate them with all consequential benefits along with back wages for the interim period. This Court has issued the rule on 6-12-1991 and the following order has been passed : 'Rule. Interim relief restraining the respondents from confirming the persons mentioned in Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the petition and directing the respondent to give preference to petitioners as and when temporary and ad hoc appointments are to be made to the post in question. It is also directed that the petitioners will be considered for the post in question for regular appointments if and when regular...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)4GLR3302
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Thakkar for Mr. Lakhani for the Corporation. Learned Advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt for the respondent has remained present on behalf of the respondent-workman. Therefore, the matter has been taken up for hearing in presence of both the learned Advocates.2. The original petitioner-Corporation has challenged the award made by the Tribunal concerned in Approval Application No. 17 of 1994 in Reference (I.T.) No. 65 of 1991 dated 9th December, 1998 whereby the approval application moved by the Corporation has been rejected by the Tribunal. This petition was admitted by this Court and ad interim relief in terms of Para 9(C) of the petition was granted on 14th October, 1999 which has continued. The respondent has filed affidavit-in-reply dated 14th December, 1999 and 24th January, 2002.3. Learned Advocate Ms. Thakkar appearing for the Corporation has submitted that the respondent was working as Art-A Mechanic and his duty was to clean the diesel tank for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)1GLR802
D.H. Waghela, J. 1. This case arising from the complaint of inhuman torture in police custody for three days from 7-10-1976 and allegations of offences under Sections 34, 114, 331, 336, 337, 334, 346, 348, 352, 355 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the I.P.C.' for short) is dragged on this far through more than seven legal proceedings, inter alia, on the plea of protection of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Cr.P.C.' for short). Even as the complainant lives on as an invalid septuagenarian, one of the four accused persons is stated to have already passed away. The present revisionists-accused persons are an erstwhile Assistant Superintendent of Police and a Police Sub-Inspector. The common refrain ingenuously agitated in different proceedings, successfully staving off trial for the alleged offences for a quarter of a century, is as to whether the alleged offences were committed while acting or purporting to act in discharge of the official duty of the accused....
Tag this Judgment!