Gujarat Court December 2001 Judgments
ishwarbhai Gokulbhai Surti Vs. K.M. Bhatt and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-28-2001
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR1129]; (2002)2GLR1276; (2002)IILLJ233Guj
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner, in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 7A and 19A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as offending Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 21-7-1983 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, respondent No. 1 in the matter of enquiry under Section 7A of the Act confirming his earlier order dated 15-9-1982 passed under Section 7A of the Act. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 23-9-1983 passed by the Legal Adviser, Ministry of Labour & Rehabilitation, Department of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi, respondent No. 2 herein under Section 19A of the Act dismissing the revision made by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 15-9-1982 and 21-7-1983 passed by the 1st ...
Tag this Judgment!Welding Rods (P.) Ltd. Vs. Indo Borax and Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-28-2001
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas747(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 20-7-2001, passed by the learned company judge overruling the preliminary objections raised by the appellant-company to the maintainability of the winding up petition (Company Petition No. 186 of 2000) filed by the present respondent.2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are as under:The present respondent ('the petitioning-creditor' or 'the original petitioner') has filed Company Petition No. 186 of 2000 for winding up of the appellant-company under the provisions of sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act). Upon service of notice, the appellant-company appeared and filed affidavit in reply dated 28-2-2001, raising the following preliminary contentions : (i) There is no resolution for institution of winding up proceedings against the respondent-company by the petitioning company;(ii) Mr. S.L. Jain who has filed an affidavit in support of the petition was not autho...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Board of Trustees of Port of Kandla and a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-28-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Guj173; (2002)2GLR934
D. M. Dharmadhikari, C.J. 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner-Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited aggrievedby rejection of their application filed under Section 55 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') for refund of alleged excess wharfage charges paid on steel colls and uncoated pipes under mistake, to the respondent-Kandla Port Trust. The sole ground of rejection of the refund claim is that it is barred by limitation being beyond the prescribed period of six months under Section 55 of the Act. 2. The petitioner's case is that in accordance with notification dated 26-6-1975 Issued by the Kandla Port Trust under Section 48 of the Act read with Section 52, wharfage at the rate of Rs. 12/- per 1000 Kgs. under Entry 44(i)-- Metal and Metal Products, not otherwise specified was required to be charged from the petitioner. But excess wharfage at the rate of Rs. 21.60 per 1000 Kgs. under Entry 75 'Unspecified items' heavy lifts each weighing 3 tons or above, h...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Nitrite Ltd. Vs. N.H. Rana
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-28-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR431]
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Deepak Nitrite Ltd.-petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the judgment and award dated 30.5.1988 passed by the Labour Court, Baroda, in complaint No. 4/1981. The Labour Court by the impugned order allowed the application of respondent Mr. N.H. Rana and directed the petitioner that Mr. N.H. Rana-respondent workman be reinstated in services and deemed to be continued in service. However, increment for the year 1982-83 may not be given in this behalf. In view of the earlier proceedings in Special Civil Application No. 4496 of 1981 regarding arrears of salary, the court did not pass any order. The court also quashed and set aside the order of dismissal imposed against Mr. Rana in this behalf.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under:2.1 The petitioner Company is manufacturing inflammable and hazardous ma...
Tag this Judgment!N.S. Shah Vs. Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-28-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR421]
D.H. Waghela, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, a driver, has challenged the award of the Labour Court, Vadodara in Reference (LCV) No.366 of 1981 whereby his demand and dispute for reinstatement with backwages was rejected.2. The petitioner was dismissed after being chargesheeted for three charges and a regular departmental enquiry into them. The petitioner had also preferred an appeal from the order of dismissal dated 16.4.1981, which appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. During the proceedings before the Labour Court, in a full-fledged hearing, the preliminary issue regarding the propriety and legality of the enquiry was adjudicated and the enquiry was upheld. And thereafter, by the impugned award, the Labour Court has also decided the issues regarding sufficiency of evidence in proof of the charges and the propriety of punishment against the petitioner after an elabora...
Tag this Judgment!Sathwara Sureshkumar Gangaram Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-27-2001
Reported in: II(2002)DMC373; (2002)3GLR44
B.J. Shethna, J. 1. The appellant-accused-Sathwara Sureshkumar Gangaram has challenged in this appeal the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30-4-1993 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 159 of 1992 whereby the learned Judge convicted him for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further undergo S.I. for 3 months. However, he has acquitted the accused for other offences punishable under Sections 409A and 201 of I.P.C. by giving benefit of doubt by that very order.2. The appellant-accused along with other accused persons tried for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. for committing murder of his wife deceased-Bhavna in the midnight hours at 2-00 p.m. of 19-3-1992. All the four accused were also tried for the offence under Section 498A of I.P.C.. All the four accused were also tried for the offences punishable under Section 201 of I....
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Proteins Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-27-2001
Reported in: [2002]126STC266(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner, a proprietary concern, in this petition has challenged the provisional assessment dated August 20, 2001, passed under Section 41B of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 and consequential orders of attachment and cancellation of registration, praying for the following reliefs :'(a) This honourable court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing and setting aside : (1) the order of provisional assessment dated August 20, 2001.(2) the attachment orders dated September 25, 2001 and November 22, 2001.(3) the order dated November 1, 2001 cancelling registration of the petitioner as a dealer.(4) the order dated August 6, 2001 demanding security by way of bank guarantee for Rs. 10,00,000.(5) the notice dated October 25, 2001 under Section 200 of the Code threatening to attach and sell all properties of the petitioner unless the petitioner pays Rs. 6,24,685 and permanently restrain the first r...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammedbhai S. Sheikh Vs. Vrajlal Mathurdas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-27-2001
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3405
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. This is a revision under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 at the instance of the original plaintiff landlord who had sued the respondent-defendant tenant for a decree of eviction of the rented premises under section 12 and 13 of the Bombay Rent Act.2. The petitioner-landlord had sued the respondent-tenant for a decree of eviction on two grounds viz. (1) that the tenant was in arrears of rent for more than six months on the date of the suit notice, and that the tenant had not paid up the amount within 30 days of receipt of the suit notice and (2) that the tenant had made a permanent construction on the rented premises without the prior written consent of the landlord.3. The trial court, after taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties, framed appropriate issues, and after recording the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, rejected the landlord's claim for eviction on the ground...
Tag this Judgment!Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction Vs. Managing Directo ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-27-2001
Reported in: (2006)2CompLJ149(Guj)
ORDERC.K. Buch, J.1. In compliance of the order passed by is court, the Official Liquidator attached to the Court has tendered the publication of advertisement as to final hearing of this petition in the vernacular Gujarati Newspaper, namely, Loksatta-Jansatta, Ahmedabad Edition. The relevant page of the newspaper tendered by the Official Liquidator is taken on record. The zerox copy of the proposal received by Official Liquidator from one Mr. Umakant Rathour of Tej Enterprise is taken on record wherein the Tej Enterprise has shown its willingness to purchase the total assets of the company at Rs. 10 crores. According to the Official Liquidator, the amount proposed is prima facie most inadequate and it is not a reasonable or appropriate amount to the value of the assets of the company. The inventory report has been also prepared.2. This petition needs to be heard and formal winding up order is required to be passed. Mrs. Soparkar learned Counsel appearing for the ex-director is present...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdishbhai Mafatlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-27-2001
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!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »