Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-11-2011
..... .1 so as to justify the making an application before the council, under section 18(1) of the msmed act. 9. on the other hand, the stand of respondent no.1 is that no amount purporting to be towards liquidated damages under contract cs 156, could not have been recovered by the petitioner from the payment due to respondent no.1 under ..... petitioner has further submitted that there was no amount due as per section 17 of the msmed act, to respondent no.1. the petitioner was well within its rights in recovering liquidated damages arising from contract cs 156, from the bill of respondent no.1 under contract cs 160. it is strenuously urged that in these circumstances, respondent no.1 could not have ..... contract cs 160. as the petitioner did not pay the amount due to respondent no.1, with interest, as provided by section 17 of the msmed act, respondent no.1 has rightly made the application to the council under section 18(1) of the ..... made an application before the council under section 18 of the msmed act, as no amount was due to it. 5.3. adverting to .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-04-2011
1. the challenge in this petition preferred under article 226 of the constitution of india, is to the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner by respondent no.2 gujarat public service commission (gpsc), on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualifications for the post of lecturer in the discipline of mechanical engineering. it is, interalia, prayed that the decision of the gpsc rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he has not scored 75 percentile in the graduate aptitude test in engineering (gate), be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be declared as eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of lecturer, class-ii, in the government engineering colleges and polytechnics in the state of gujarat.2. the relevant factual background is that the gpsc published advertisement no.186 dated 16.02.2010, calling for applications from eligible candidates to fill up the posts of lecturers in government engineering colleges and polytechnics in the state of gujarat. the petitioner, who was appointed as lecturer (mechanical engineering) on ad hoc basis vide order dated 28.01.2009, applied pursuant to the same. earlier, the petitioner, along with others, had filed a petition, being special civil application no.4651 of 2010, seeking a direction that his services be not terminated. this was done in view of the fact that the appointment of the petitioner was for a term of 11 months, or till he is replaced by a regularly .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-03-2011
1. the applicants have filed this application under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings and the private criminal complaint case no.1304 of 2010 pending before the court of metropolitan magistrate, court no.13, ahmedabad.2. on 23.12.2010, a co-ordinate bench of this court while issuing rule and granting ad-interim relief, passed the following order:1. mr.meena, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the amount involved in the present matter is approximately rs.1 lac (rupees one lac only) and to show the bonafide event the petitioners are ready and willing to deposit the said amount with the registry of this court without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioners.2. though served nobody appears on behalf of the respondent no.1.3. in the facts and circumstances of the case, rule, returnable on 17/1/2011. ad-interim relief granted earlier is directed to be continued till final disposal of the present petition, on condition that the petitioners shall deposit a sum of rs.1 lac (rupees one lac only) with the registry of this court on or before 11/1/2011. however the deposit of the aforesaid amount by the petitioners shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioners."3. thereafter, the parties have settled the dispute and filed joint settlement purshish in the following terms:"3.1 that the petitioner herein shall pay an amount of rupees 1,40,000 .....Tag this Judgment!