Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Court: gujarat Year: 1981 Page 1 of about 24 results (0.013 seconds)

Apr 20 1981 (HC)

Prataprai Arjandas Dhameja and anr. Vs. Bhupatsing Gagji (by Lrs.) and ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Apr-20-1981

Reported in : AIR1982Guj72; (1982)1GLR437

..... with any amount of justification that the learned judges of this high court has lost sight of the distinction?36. the next question that arises is was there any, valid rationale in deducting insurance payments and accident insurance payments under lord campbell's act as it stood prior to the amendment in 1908 when such payments were not deducted under common ..... law in personal injury cases? there was hardly any convincing rationale and it is precisely for that reason that it became necessary for the legislature to intervene in 1908 and thereafter from time to time to extend the principle of justice .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 15 1981 (HC)

Maganbhai Bhikhabhai Mistri Vs. Olpad Taluka AzaddIn and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jul-15-1981

Reported in : (1982)1GLR664

..... be preferred not only qua his junior teachers but qua outsiders, provided everything is equal on merits. if this is the intent and rationale underlying the proviso, i think, with respect to the tribunal, that it clearly misconstrued the proviso and proceeded to reject the application in limine as if the only criteria for ..... teachers employed in the same school and the outsiders, preference is to be given to the senior teacher serving in the school, provided he is otherwise eligible and suitable. the rationale underlying this proviso appears to be that a senior teacher who has put in services in a school for which the appointment of principal is to be made, is to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 06 1981 (HC)

Kartikey V. Sarabhai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Aug-06-1981

Reported in : (1982)28CTR(Guj)132; [1982]138ITR425(Guj)

..... right which belonged to him, viz., the right to share in the net assets of the company upon its going into liquidation. what needs to be emphasised is that the rationale of the conclusion, that a payment made to a shareholder upon the distribution of the assets upon a winding-up does not constitute an extinguishment of any right, rested on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 1981 (HC)

indravadav Occhavlal Modi Vs. Vadodara Municipal Corporation and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Apr-29-1981

Reported in : (1982)1GLR88

..... it impossible to accede to this reading of the legal provisions. if the first meeting convened on 10th february 1981 could be adjourned to 13th february 1981, there is no rationale for holding that if the mayor out of confusion and chaotic state of mind leaves the chair and declares the meeting concluded, the first meeting is dead for all time .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 27 1981 (HC)

Bai Amina Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Aug-27-1981

Reported in : 1982CriLJ1531; (1981)GLR1186

p.d. desai, j.1. the petitioner, a widow, has been detained by the second respondent (district magistrate, panchmahals) in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 3 of the national security act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') upon being satisfied that her detention was necessary with a view to preventing her from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. the order of detention is dated april 11/12, 1981. the actual detention commenced on and with effect from april 14, 1981. the grounds of detention were furnished to the petitioner on april 17, 1981. the first respondent (state of gujarat) accorded its approval to the order of detention under sub-section (4) of section 3 on april 22, 1981. on may 2 1981, the petitioner made a representation to the state government which was rejected on june 12, 1981. meanwhile, the advisory board considered the case of the petitioner and on june 9, 1981 it reported to the first respondent that there was, in its opinion, sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. hence the present petition.2. the grounds of detention supplied to the petitioner disclose that two grounds weighed with the detaining authority in arriving at the requisite satisfaction.3. the first ground mentions that the petitioner was a head-strong and fanatic woman and that she was habituated to indulge in criminal activities and that she was inciting communal feelings amongst muslims against sindhis and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 23 1981 (HC)

Consumer Education and Research Centre and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat a ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jun-23-1981

Reported in : (1981)22GLR712

b.j. divan, c.j.1. in this case the petitioners challenge the validity of a notification issued by the government of gujarat under section 7 of the commissions of inquiry act, 1952 (herein-after refened to as the act), discontinuing the commission which the state government had appointed on september 9, 1979 under section 3 of the act.2. it may be pointed out that the notification under section 7 was issued on march 17, 1981 but the petition was filed on the same day earlier on 17th march 1981. the petition was filed on the basis that the government was about to issue the said notification under section 7 and in the petition as originally framed, the prayer was to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order permanently restraining the respondents, their agents and servants from winding up or obstructing or interfering with the proceedings of the commission. prayer (b) was to quash and declaretde notification or order, if issued, regarding winding up of the commission. prayer (c) was for interim relief pending admission. prayer (cc) and prayers (ccc) and (cccc) were all for interim relief. prayer (e) is the usual prayer seeking other and further reliefs as the nature of the case may require.3. the first petitioner is the consumer education & research centre (hereinafter referred for brevity sake as c.e.r.c.). it is a public trust registered under the bombay public trusts act, 1950. the second petitioner is the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 1981 (HC)

F.M. Kolia Vs. G.S. Barot and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Apr-20-1981

Reported in : (1981)0GLR700; (1981)IILLJ269Guj

thakkar, j. 1. the last straw which might break the back of camel may are may not exist, but if it exists, can one say that it will not break the back of the camel if it proceeds for a hundred miles but it will break its back if it proceeds 10 miles more can one say so without examining the question closely and carefully and without applying one's mind to this dimension of the matter similar is the question which arises in this petition instituted by the chalthan kamdar mandal under art. 227 of the constitution arising from an award rendered by the industrial court in reference (ic) no. 144 of 1980, on october 28, 1980. the award is challenged to a limited extent. the grievance is that while the award upholds the claim of the workers to a pay-scale adopted by the industry in the whole region as recommended by the second wage board eleven years back in 1969 now in 1980, a rider is added. the rider is to the effect that it will be enforced only with effect from a subsequent date (november 1, 1980) and not with effect from the date of reference (april 24, 1980) as the industrial court would be ordinarily expected to do even if it was disinclined to make it effective retrospectively from the date of making of demand so far as employers are concerned, they have accepted the award in toto in the sense that they have not challenged any part of the award by way of a petition under art. 227 of the constitution of india, and it has become final and binding in so far as they are .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 01 1981 (HC)

Jayendrabhai C. Parikh and ors. Vs. Sardar Patel University, Anand and ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jul-01-1981

Reported in : AIR1981Guj248; (1982)1GLR544

order1. the dispute in this petition centres round the selection of a candidate for appointment as reader in education in the sardar patel university. in order to appreciate the various points urged at the hearing of the petition, it is necessary to trace the background. 2. section 29 of the sardar patel university act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), inter alia, provides that no person shall be appointed as a professor or reader of the university except on the recommendation of a committee of selection constituted for the purpose. the syndicate is empowered under the said section to make the final selection out of the persons, if any, so recommended. the syndicate is required to record its reasons if it does not make appointment in accordance with the order of merit arranged by the committee and also if it does not accept the sole name recommended by the committee. the selection committee is required to be presided over by the vice-chancellor as ex-officio chairman.3. ordinance 96 prescribes the qualifications for being eligible for appointment to the post of a reader, the qualifications are as under:- (i) consistently good academic record with 1st or high 2nd class ('b' in the seven points scale) at bachelor's and master's degrees in a relevant subject of a recognised university or equivalent degree of a statutory institute. (ii) either a research degree of doctorate standard or published work of high standard in the relevant subject; and(iii) at least seven .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 1981 (HC)

Sameen Banu Makrani and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Mar-11-1981

Reported in : (1981)22GLR1084

b.k. mehta, j.1. a few relevant facts need be noticed in order to appreciate the questions raised in this group of appeals being letters patent appeals nos. 208 to 216 and 218, 222 and 232 ail of 1980 and no. 53 of 1981.2. the dispute centers round the impugned order of the director of education of the government of gujarat being no. training-admission 91/7/920 of november 6, 1980 canceling the earlier orders of the same authority dated august 29, 1980; september 17, 1980; september 22, 1980; october 3, 1980 and october 9, 1980, which directed the different teachers training schools-government as well as private-in the state of gujarat to admit all the 430 candidates named therein out of which some are appellants before us in this group of appeals, and about 44 are arrayed as respondents no. 3 to 47 in letters patent appeal no. 209 of 1980, and the others are the petitioners in the various civil applications preferred by them for being joined as parties. the impugned order was required to be made in the following circumstances:3. since the primary teachers training course (hereinafter referred to as 'the ptc') provides openings in primary schools in the state as well as outside the state, it attracts a very large number of students who can take this short course of about two years after the passing the secondary school certificate (hereinafter referred to as -'the ssc') examination so as to qualify them as trained teachers eligible for being appointed as primary teachers in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 01 1981 (HC)

R.M. Parmar Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Dec-01-1981

Reported in : (1982)1GLR352; (1983)ILLJ261Guj

thakkar, c.j. 1. what the enlightened legislature gave in its wisdom in the context of the felt needs of the time (the power u/s. 11a of the industrial disputes act to reduce the punishment of dismissal or removal from service imposed on an industrial worker by an employer in a departmental proceeding) has been taken away by the labour court. taken away inter alia on the ground that the power can be exercised only provided the worker, (1) does not contest the proceedings, (2) pleads guilty and, (3) seeks mercy. and that provides the necessity for spelling out the principles for the exercise of these vital powers in the true spirit of the legislation. 2. the question has arisen in the context of dismissal of an employee of the gujarat electricity board working as a helper for more than ten years at its narol sub-station, by an order passed by the executive engineer, narol, as per annexure 'c' dated january 31, 1975. the order of dismissal was passed in the context of two charges, namely, (1) absence from duty for about two days without obtaining prior permission, and (2) theft of scrap material. such as nuts, bolts, screws, etc. valued at less than rs. 50. a reference was made to the labour court at ahmedabad u/s. 10(1)(c) of the i.d. act of 1947 by the competent authority by his order dated august 1, 1975 for adjudication of the industrial dispute raised by the employee questioning the legality and validity of the order of dismissal passed against him. the labour court at .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //