Executive Engineer, Gujarat Water ... vs Makwana Dhirajlal Dahyalal on 5 April, 2002
17. The head-notes (A) in case of G.S.R.T.C. v. M.S. Patel and Anr. are reproduced as under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.45 seconds)Latif Chhmtumiya Shaikh vs State Of Gujarat on 21 July, 2000
32. Thus, powers under the provisions contained in the Bombay [Furlough and Parole] Rules, 1959 cannot be exercised by the executive in favour of a convict undergoing sentence whose appeal is pending before the Court. The Division Bench in case of State of Gujarat v/s Jayantilal M. Patel [1995 - 2 - G.L.H. 260] examined the Scheme of the Bombay [Furlough and Parole] Rules, 1959, and section 389[1] of Criminal Procedure Code.
Latif Chhmtumiya Shaikh vs State Of Gujarat on 21 July, 2000
32. Thus, powers under the provisions contained in the Bombay [Furlough and Parole] Rules, 1959 cannot be exercised by the executive in favour of a convict undergoing sentence whose appeal is pending before the Court. The Division Bench in case of State of Gujarat v/s Jayantilal M. Patel [1995 - 2 - G.L.H. 260] examined the Scheme of the Bombay [Furlough and Parole] Rules, 1959, and section 389[1] of Criminal Procedure Code.
Delhi Transport Corporation vs N.L. Kakkar Presiding Officer, ... on 17 March, 2004
38. The view of the Gujarat High Court is to be found in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. M.S. Patel, 1998 II CLR 473. In that case, the conductor of a bus did not issue tickets to two groups of passengers. The checking staff made a report after taking the statements of the passengers. In a departmental enquiry, the conductor was held guilty of misconduct and dismissed from service. The Labour Court, however, upset the finding of the disciplinary authority and reinstated the workman. The Gujarat High Court held that it was not a criminal prosecution where the allegations have to be proved against the conductor beyond doubt. The checking staff had produced the statements of the passengers and had withstood cross-examination. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rattan Singh, it was held that the finding of guilt against the conductor was not unjustified.
Sh. M.M. Kohli vs Union Of India Through on 6 August, 2013
Further, the Tribunals powers of judicial review do not extend its ambit to go into the truthfulness and correctness of the charges and the findings as held by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Transport Commissioner Vs. S.S. Patil.
1