Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

L ODEDRA

85 judgments delivered by benches including this judge.

STATE OF GUJARATversusDIVYAKALABEN DANJIBHAI BARAIYA

35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE

The State of Gujarat filed a Letters Patent Appeal No. 694 of 2026 against Divyakalanben Danjibhai Baraiya and others. The appeal raised certain issues that had already been examined in Letters Patent Appeal No. 448/2026, where the State's pleas were dismissed. The Court noted that there was no dispute that the same is

YOGESH DASHRATHBHAI PATELversusDISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GANDHINAGAR

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners Yogesh Dashrathbhai Patel and another filed a civil application before the Gujarat High Court seeking condonation of a 273‑day delay in filing an appeal against the order of the District Development Officer, Gandhinagar. The respondent, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader, waived service of

CHIEF OFFICER, DHARAMPUR NAGAR PALIKAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

Four former employees of Dharampur Nagar Palika claimed pension benefits after reaching superannuation. The petitioners argued that, like earlier panchayat employees who were absorbed into the municipality, they were entitled to pension under the General Provident Fund (GPF) scheme. The Single Judge had directed that a

BHARATKUMAR RAMANBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The State Government in 2009 attempted to cancel a higher pay scale (Rs 5,000‑8,000) granted to librarians who had completed nine years of service, issuing recovery instructions. The librarians challenged the cancellation through Special Civil Applications (Nos. 10305‑10307 of 2009). A Single Judge quashed the cancella

VARSHABEN BHUPENDRABHAI TRANSAVALAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The State Government in 2009 attempted to cancel a higher pay scale (Rs 5,000‑8,000) granted to librarians who had completed nine years of service, issuing recovery instructions. The librarians challenged the cancellation through Special Civil Applications (Nos. 10305‑10307 of 2009). A Single Judge quashed the cancella

DINESHKUMAR JETHALAL PARMARversusUNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

D.J. Parmar, a railway employee, was charged in 1999 with abusing his position to help his daughter cheat in a Railway Recruitment Board exam, leading to his removal from service. The charge was based on alleged manipulation of his nomination as centre‑in‑charge and tampering with answer sheets, with evidence from subo

M/S. JANARDAN J. RAVALversusINDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

M/s. Janardan J. Raval filed a Special Civil Application (writ petition) before the Gujarat High Court. The petitioner’s counsel submitted written instructions to withdraw the petition and placed the instructions on record. The Court considered the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. Accepting the writt

M/S SEEBAAT DEVELOPERSversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The State of Gujarat issued an e‑auction tender for plots, requiring bidders to deposit an Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and submit a sealed bid. M/s Seebaat Developers deposited the EMD and tender fee but claimed a technical glitch prevented submission of a sealed bid; the authority rejected the claim and forfeited the

KANDLA PORT TRUST (NOW DEENDAYAL PORT TRUST)versusSANJAY JAGDISHBHAI BHATY

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The Gujarat High Court considered a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Kandla Port Trust (now Deendayal Port Trust) against a single judge’s order that set aside the employee’s removal (July 2017) and dismissal (September 2018) and remanded the matter for a minor penalty. The employee, Sanjay Jagdishbhai Bhaty, had been ch

SHRI MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KARMACHARI COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITEDversusARUNBHAI T SHAH

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The Managing Director of Karmachari Cooperative Bank filed a Letters Patent Appeal after a delay of 48 days. The respondent filed an opposition, and the matter was brought before the Gujarat High Court as a civil application for condonation of delay. The applicant argued that the delay was not deliberate and sought con

SANDIPANI GLOBAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUSTversusAHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Sandipani Global Education and Charitable Trust, filed a Special Civil Application seeking permission to withdraw its writ petition against Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. The petitioner was represented by Mr. Mayur Kishanchandani, while the respondent was represented by Mr. Nandish Y. Chudgar. The Cou

DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICERversusKIRANKUMAR MALABHAI DAMOR

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The District Development Officer filed a special civil application seeking condonation of a 323‑day delay in filing a Letters Patent Appeal. The applicant explained the reasons for the delay, and the court examined whether the explanation satisfied the requirements for condonation under the Civil Procedure Code. The ju

JIGNESH HIMMATLAL KARIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

56-DISPOSED AT ADMISSION STAGE

The petitioner, Jignesh Himmatlal Kariya, sought modification of paragraph No.3 of an earlier judgment concerning the election of members to the Executive Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, Porbandar. Both the petitioner and the private respondents agreed that the Joint Charity Commissioner, Rajkot, should scrutinis

SIKANDER ISMAILBHAI VORAversusAHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

56-DISPOSED AT ADMISSION STAGE

The petitioners sought to halt the imminent laying of drainage pipelines at the site of a proposed petrol pump, alleging that the work was being undertaken without any notice and in violation of natural justice principles. The respondents argued that the petitioners had not filed a development application under the Guj

BADHARBHAI PARVATBHAI BARIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

A group of workmen who were terminated approached the Labour Court, which ordered their reinstatement without back‑wages but granted continuity of service. The State challenged this award by filing a writ petition, and the Single Judge set aside the award on the ground of the workmen’s delay in approaching the Labour C

RAYSINGBHAI PUNABHAI BARIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

A group of workmen who were terminated approached the Labour Court, which ordered their reinstatement without back‑wages but granted continuity of service. The State challenged this award by filing a writ petition, and the Single Judge set aside the award on the ground of the workmen’s delay in approaching the Labour C

PARSHOTTAMBHAI LAXMANBHAI BARIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

A group of workmen who were terminated approached the Labour Court, which ordered their reinstatement without back‑wages but granted continuity of service. The State challenged this award by filing a writ petition, and the Single Judge set aside the award on the ground of the workmen’s delay in approaching the Labour C

KAMANBHAI LAXMANBHAI HARIJANversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

A group of workmen who were terminated approached the Labour Court, which ordered their reinstatement without back‑wages but granted continuity of service. The State challenged this award by filing a writ petition, and the Single Judge set aside the award on the ground of the workmen’s delay in approaching the Labour C

HIMMATSINH SURSINH BARIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

A group of workmen who were terminated approached the Labour Court, which ordered their reinstatement without back‑wages but granted continuity of service. The State challenged this award by filing a writ petition, and the Single Judge set aside the award on the ground of the workmen’s delay in approaching the Labour C

BAPUSINH SATESINH BARIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

A group of workmen who were terminated approached the Labour Court, which ordered their reinstatement without back‑wages but granted continuity of service. The State challenged this award by filing a writ petition, and the Single Judge set aside the award on the ground of the workmen’s delay in approaching the Labour C

AONE EXPLORATION PRIVATE LIMITEDversusOIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED (ONGC)

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, AONE Exploration Private Ltd., challenged ONGC's rejection of its bid for chemical dosing pump services on the ground that it had not uploaded the required integrity pact. The petitioner argued that, as a registered vendor, it was exempt from re‑submitting the integrity pact, relying on ONGC's vendor re

KRUNAL THAKORBHAI TANDELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The appellant, Krunal Thakorbhai Tandel, challenged the selection of a candidate who held an Industrial Engineering degree for the post of Assistant Professor, arguing that a Gujarat Government Resolution (GR) that recognized his Mechanical Engineering degree as equivalent should not also grant preference to candidates

BADHARBHAI PARVATBHAI BARIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

A group of workmen who were terminated approached the Labour Court, which ordered their reinstatement without back‑wages but granted continuity of service. The State challenged this award by filing a writ petition, and the Single Judge set aside the award on the ground of the workmen’s delay in approaching the Labour C

RAYSINGBHAI PUNABHAI BARIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

A group of workmen who were terminated approached the Labour Court, which ordered their reinstatement without back‑wages but granted continuity of service. The State challenged this award by filing a writ petition, and the Single Judge set aside the award on the ground of the workmen’s delay in approaching the Labour C

PARSHOTTAMBHAI LAXMANBHAI BARIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

A group of workmen who were terminated approached the Labour Court, which ordered their reinstatement without back‑wages but granted continuity of service. The State challenged this award by filing a writ petition, and the Single Judge set aside the award on the ground of the workmen’s delay in approaching the Labour C

KAMANBHAI LAXMANBHAI HARIJANversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

A group of workmen who were terminated approached the Labour Court, which ordered their reinstatement without back‑wages but granted continuity of service. The State challenged this award by filing a writ petition, and the Single Judge set aside the award on the ground of the workmen’s delay in approaching the Labour C

HIMMATSINH SURSINH BARIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

A group of workmen who were terminated approached the Labour Court, which ordered their reinstatement without back‑wages but granted continuity of service. The State challenged this award by filing a writ petition, and the Single Judge set aside the award on the ground of the workmen’s delay in approaching the Labour C

BAPUSINH SATESINH BARIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

A group of workmen who were terminated approached the Labour Court, which ordered their reinstatement without back‑wages but granted continuity of service. The State challenged this award by filing a writ petition, and the Single Judge set aside the award on the ground of the workmen’s delay in approaching the Labour C

YOGI CONSTRUCTION CO. A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRMversusTHE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The Gujarat High Court examined two writ petitions challenging the award of a Rs 122.97‑crore sewage‑treatment‑plant contract. R & B Infra Project Ltd. argued that its bid was unfairly rejected first for incomplete online upload, then on a technical ground that its MoU was on a Rs 100 stamp paper instead of Rs 300, and

GIRISHKUMAR RAMESHCHANDRA SONIversusHIGH COURT OF GUJARAT THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, an Additional District Judge, sought to quash a departmental inquiry and his suspension, alleging that the inquiry violated Ministry of Law and Justice guidelines requiring a complaint with an affidavit. The High Court examined whether the disciplinary authority could initiate an inquiry without such a

M/S R AND B INFRA PROJECT LIMITEDversusTHE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The Gujarat High Court examined two writ petitions challenging the award of a Rs 122.97‑crore sewage‑treatment‑plant contract. R & B Infra Project Ltd. argued that its bid was unfairly rejected first for incomplete online upload, then on a technical ground that its MoU was on a Rs 100 stamp paper instead of Rs 300, and

PMP INFRATACK LIMITEDversusOIL AND NATURAL GAS LIMITED

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, PMP Infratack Ltd., challenged an order by Oil and Natural Gas Ltd (ONGC) that banned it from contracting, which was based on the termination of their contract. Both parties admitted that during the pendency of the writ petition the dispute was referred to arbitration, and the arbitral tribunal held tha

LILAVATI FOUNDATION THROUGH SIGNATORY SAURAV SHARMAversusTHE RECOVERY OFFICER

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The Lilavati Foundation, represented by its authorized signatory Vaibhav Dhariwal, filed multiple restoration applications before the Gujarat High Court. The foundation sought the Court's permission to withdraw these applications while retaining the liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in the future. The respond

STATE OF GUJARATversusR P CHATURVEDI

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The respondents, appointed as Class‑III Medical Officers in 1978‑80, became eligible for promotion to Class‑II after five years of service under the Gujarat Medical Service Class‑II Recruitment Rules, 1977. Despite meeting this eligibility, the State recruited 400 allopathic doctors between 1983‑93 and did not consider

JAYSHRIKUMARI ISHVARBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

Jayshrikumari Ishvarbhai Patel applied for the post of Shikshan Sahayak (Assistant Teacher) in Sociology under the Scheduled Tribe reservation. She was rejected because she held a B.A. in Sociology but only an M.A. in Education, not an M.A. in Sociology as required by the Government Higher Secondary Teacher, Class‑III,

CHIRAGKUMAR MOHANBHAI TANKversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

Chiragkumar Mohanbhai Tank filed a Letters Patent Appeal (No. 388 of 2026) seeking to withdraw the appeal because the main writ petition was scheduled for final disposal on 23 June 2026. The appellant's counsel requested permission to withdraw, and the court entertained the request. The High Court dismissed the appeal

MANAV SANJAYBHAI BORADversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal (C/LPA/389/2026) seeking permission to withdraw the appeal because the principal writ petition concerning a recruitment matter was scheduled for final disposal on 23 June 2026. The court considered the request and, without examining the merits of the underlying dispute, allow

KUVARBEN KAMALKHAN PARMARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE

The appellant, Kuvarben Kamalkhan Parmar, filed a Letters Patent Appeal (No. 250 of 2026) against the State of Gujarat and others. During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel indicated that she did not wish to pursue the appeal. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal as not pressed. No substantive factual or l

MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONERversusVADODARA MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES UNION

35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE

The Municipal Commissioner and others filed a Letters Patent Appeal (No. 320 of 2026) against the Vadodara Municipal Employees Union. The appellants argued that the issues raised in their writ appeal were already decided in Letters Patent Appeal No. 294 of 2026. The Court examined the claim and found that the matter wa

MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONERversusMOHITE MANSINGRAO NARAYANRAO

35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE

The Municipal Commissioner and others appealed against Mohite Mansingrao Narayanrao and others, claiming that the issues raised in their writ appeal were already decided in Letters Patent Appeal No. 294 of 2026. The Court examined the claim and found that the matter was indeed covered by the earlier decision. Consequen

NAGESH CORPORATIONversusGUJARAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Nagesh Corporation, filed a Special Civil Application seeking relief against the Gujarat Urban Development Department and others. The petitioner later instructed counsel to withdraw the writ petition, preferring to approach the respondent authority directly for redress of grievances. The petitioner’s co

SHANABHAI KONABHAI PARMARversusDEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

Shanabhai Konabhai Parmar filed an appeal against the Deputy Executive Engineer but failed to file it within the prescribed period. The applicant sought condonation of the delay, citing that similar delays had been condoned in companion appeals. The respondent, represented by an Additional Government Pleader, waived se

BHIKHABHAI JAVANBHAI MALIWADversusDEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

Bhikhabhai Javanbhai Maliwad filed an appeal against the Deputy Executive Engineer but failed to file it within the prescribed period. The applicant sought condonation of the delay, citing that similar delays had been condoned in companion appeals. The respondent, represented by an Additional Government Pleader, waived

VAGHABHAI HARIBHAI MALIWADversusDEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

Vaghbhai Haribhai Maliwad filed a civil application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a order of the Deputy Executive Engineer. The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period, and the applicant argued that similar delays had been condoned in companion appeals. The respondent, represented by an

GANPATBHAI BHURABHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

DISPOSED AS INFRUCTUOUS

The petitioners, represented by Mr. Kamlesh S. Kotai, failed to appear before the Gujarat High Court despite multiple adjournments. The respondents, including Mr. Utkarsh Sharma (AGP), Ms. Roopal R. Patel, and others, were present and ready to proceed. The court noted the petitioners' non‑appearance and, in accordance

SANGAM BADRINATH PANDEYversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioners sought to withdraw their Special Criminal Application for quashing, citing ongoing settlement negotiations with the respondents. They requested liberty to file a fresh petition if any difficulty arises later. The Court considered the request and found no impediment to allowing the withdrawal. Accordingl

K.S. & CO. THROUGH SAKABHAI @ SANKABHAI PRABHATBHAI DESAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

The petitioner advanced a loan of Rs.2,50,000 to the accused, secured by a vehicle, and the accused defaulted, leading to a bounced cheque and a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court, invoking Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code, ordered the petitioner to produce

STATE OF GUJARATversusLILABEN MAHESHBHAI PATEL

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The State of Gujarat filed a civil application seeking condonation of a 179‑day delay in filing an appeal. The applicants were represented by Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Vaishnavi Verma. The respondents were represented by counsel Mr. H.S. Munshaw, Mr. M.B. Parikh and Mr. H.J. Karathiya. The Court examined the exp

VASAIYA SUMITRABEN SAVSINGBHAIversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The High Court of Gujarat listed a large number of pending civil applications and appeals involving the parties Nirav Merambhai Dangar and Niharikaben @ Diku Harsurbhai Gagiya. An office note dated 19-02-2026 indicated that the required office objections had not been removed within the prescribed time. The court examin

VARSHA MUKESHBHAI KATARAversusTHE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION THROUGH SECRETARY

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner sought an order directing the State Election Commission to include her name in the electoral roll of Ward No. 4, Sabarmati, so she could vote in the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation elections. Her name was absent from the Legislative Assembly constituency roll, which forms the basis for the municipal roll

BHAKTA KAVI NARSINH MEHTA UNIVERSITYversusAMITKUMAR LALITBHAI GHORICHA

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The employee, Amitkumar Ghoricha, was appointed as an Assistant Librarian on a contract in 2020, which was repeatedly extended until July 2025. He filed a Special Civil Application seeking regularisation, arguing that after five years of service he was entitled to be made a permanent employee. The Single Judge held the

SHASHANKKUMAR ANILKUMAR MISHRAversusSTATE ELECTION COMMISSION, GUJARAT

53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

Manishkumar Pravinbhai Padaya filed Special Civil Applications No. 5202/2026 and No. 5424/2026 against the State of Gujarat seeking the removal of certain office objections. The High Court of Gujarat, after hearing the matter, directed that all such objections be removed on or before 8 May 2026. The order further provi

DARJI AJAYKUMAR DAHYABHAIversusRAJDEVSINH GHAMBHIRSINH GOHIL

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner filed a special civil application challenging the reservation allocation made by the Election Commission in a revised preliminary order dated 12 March 2026. The petitioner had filed objections to the original preliminary order on 3 and 5 March 2026 but made no objections or suggestions to the revised ord

ISHWARBHAI NARSENGBHAI PARMARversusTHE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

Ishwarbhai Narsengbhai Parmar filed a writ petition challenging the State Election Commission's final notification reserving a District Panchayat seat in Vav‑Tharad for a Scheduled Caste woman. The petitioner argued that the earlier draft notification of 25‑Feb‑2026 already allocated the seat to a Scheduled Caste and a

DHAIRYA PALLAV PARIKHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

The applicants filed a Special Criminal Application under the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No. 11824008250002 of 2025 registered with Mahila Police Station, Tapi, for offences under Sections 85, 86, 115(2), 352 and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. The applicants and respondent

JAMATMAL JETHANAND BHAMBHANIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

The applicants, Jamatmal Jethanand Bhambhani & Anr, filed a special criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash FIR No. 11208050230733 of 2023, which alleged offences under IPC Sections 504, 506(2), 120B and 114. The first informant, Mrs. Mahek (respondent No.2), submitted

SUBHASHKUMAR CHELAJI THAKORversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

27-WITHDRAWN @ ADM.STAGE

The petitioner, Subhashkumar ChelaJi Thakor, was discharged by the trial court in a criminal case. He filed a Special Criminal Application seeking quashment of the proceedings. After discharge, he approached the High Court to withdraw his petition, stating that further relief was unnecessary. The petitioner’s counsel,

STATE OF GUJARATversusJATIN PREMESH PANDYA

46-ANY OTHER MODE @ FH

The State of Gujarat filed a Letters Patent Appeal (No. 751 of 2016) and a connected civil application for a stay. The respondent, Jatin Premesh Pandya, had died during the COVID pandemic, but the exact date of death was unknown. The appellant argued that the legal heirs had not been brought on record within the prescr

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.versusMINOR JAY @ SUNNY DILIPKUMAR AMBALAL BHOI

46-ANY OTHER MODE @ FH

The United India Insurance Company Limited appealed against a claim of Rs. 4,14,000 arising from a road accident involving the minor claimant, Jay @ Sunny Dilipkumar Ambalal Bhoi and others. The High Court observed that the amount was modest and there was no dispute about the accident itself. Consequently, the Court di

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusKALABHAI HASANBHAI THAKOR [DELETD]

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. appealed against a tribunal award of Rs. 1,74,468 as compensation for a road accident. The learned Tribunal had awarded interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs. The High Court, after hearing counsel, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the amount was small and the

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusPRATAPSINH MERUBHA PARMAR

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The dispute stemmed from a road accident for which the claimant was awarded Rs. 3,32,000 as compensation with interest. The insurer, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., filed a first appeal against the award. The respondent contended that the appeal should not be entertained because the quantum of the award was small. The Hi

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLERversusCHAMPABEN KALABHAI THAKOR

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The appellant filed a first appeal against a tribunal award of Rs. 2,61,702 as compensation for a road accident. The learned Tribunal had awarded interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs. The respondent argued that the appeal should not be entertained due to the modest quantum of the award. The High Court, noti

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLERversusPRATAPSINH MERUBHAI PARMAR

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The Divisional Controller appealed against an award of Rs. 4,98,000/- granted to the claimants in a road accident case. The learned Tribunal had awarded interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs. The appellant argued that the appeal should not be entertained due to the modest quantum of the award. The High Court

NIRMALKUMAR RAMANLAL SHAHversusKUDEEPSHING PALVINDARSHING JAT SARDAR

43-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ FH

The petitioners Nirmalkumar Ramanlal Shah & Anr filed a first appeal (No.174 of 2015) before the Gujarat High Court against respondents Kudeepshing Palvindarshing Jat Sardar & Ors. The appellant was represented by Mr. Ruturaj Nanavati, while the respondent was represented by Mr. Palak H. Thakkar. The Court had previous

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.versusSHOBHANABEN VRAJLAL GORDHANBHAI VAGHASIYA

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

United India Insurance Company Limited appealed against a claim of Rs.4,51,166 arising from a road accident involving Shobhanaben Vrajlal Gordhanbhai Vaghasiya and others. The High Court observed that the amount was small and that there was no dispute over the accident itself. Consequently, the Court dismissed the firs

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTDversusHARIBHAI NATHALAL MAKWANA

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The United India Insurance Company Ltd appealed against a claim of Rs.5,00,000 arising from a road accident involving Haribhai Nathalal Makwana and others. The High Court observed that the amount was small and there was no dispute over the accident itself. Consequently, the Court dismissed the first appeal on the groun

NURMOHAMMAD IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKHversusMAHERA LAKSHMANBHAI VAGHABHAI

47-DISPOSAL IN ANY OTHER MODE FH

The appellant, Noor Mohammad Ibrahimbhai Shaikh, appealed against the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal's award of Rs 1,73,400 for injuries sustained in a 2006 road accident. He contended that his monthly earnings in Kuwait were Rs 35,000 and that the Tribunal had wrongly assessed his notional income at Rs 3,000, thereby u

GANGABEN @ AMRUTABEN NARANBHAI DOLASHIYAversusMADHUBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI JOLIYA

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

The appellant challenged a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs 2,89,000 compensation for the death of Naranbhai, caused by a tractor driven without a valid licence. The tribunal had exonerated ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, holding the driver‑owner liable. The appellant sought (i) a pay‑and‑recover ord

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusLEELABEN WD/O SHANTILAL VALSINGHBHAI PARGI

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The appellant, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., filed a first appeal against an award of Rs. 3,76,700 granted to the respondents, Leelaben (widow of Shantilal Valsinghbhai Pargi) and others, arising from a road accident. The respondents argued that the appeal should not be entertained because the quantum of the award was

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTDversusMUSABKHAN AMIRKHAN PATHAN

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The National Insurance Co. Ltd filed a first appeal seeking recovery of Rs.4,36,500 arising from a road accident. The respondents did not appear before the High Court of Gujarat. The Court observed that the amount claimed was small and that there was no dispute over the accident, and therefore deemed the appeal unworth

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLERversusBAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The Divisional Controller appealed against an order of the Tribunal concerning a road‑accident claim against Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. The insurer had offered to pay Rs. 3,69,500, which the appellant considered insufficient. The High Court observed that the quantum of the claim was small and that there

DEPUTY ENGINEERversusDECD. MANSUKHBHAI KURJIBHAI GOHEL

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

The Deputy Engineer and others appealed against the order of a tribunal concerning a road accident claim where an insurance company challenged a payment of Rs.4,12,500. The High Court observed that the amount was small and there was no dispute about the accident itself. Consequently, the Court dismissed the first appea

BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusRAJJAKBHAI ISHUBHAI GHANCHI

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. filed a first appeal against a decree awarding Rs. 4,37,900 to the claimants arising from a road accident. The High Court observed that the amount was small and that there was no dispute over the accident, and therefore deemed the appeal not worthy of consideration. Consequently, t

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTDversusSADRUDDIN MAGANLAL NARSANDANI

39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

New India Assurance Co. Ltd filed a first appeal against Sadurdin Maganlal Narsandani & Ors. seeking a claim of Rs. 4,34,000 arising from a road accident. The High Court observed that the amount was small and that there was no dispute over the accident itself. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal on the ground

KAPILABEN GORDHANBHAI PATELversusIRFANBHAI ISUBHAI MANSURI

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

The appellants, the family of the deceased Gordhanbhai Shivabhai Patel, appealed a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award that held the deceased 25% negligent and granted Rs.12,98,235 in compensation. They contended that the jeep driver was wholly at fault and that the Tribunal failed to include prospective income, loss

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search