Gujarat Court September 2002 Judgments
Urmilaben Dahyabhai Gohil Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR655
Y.B. Bhatt, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.2. Rule returnable today. Ms. Hansa Punani, learned A.G.P., appears and waives service of rule for respondent No. 1 and Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia appears and waives service of rule for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.3. On a joint request the petition is taken up for final hearing today.4. There is no controversy that one Dahyabhai Karsanbhai Gohil was working as a Compounder with the Health Department of the District Panchayat, at the Primary Health Centre at Haldar, under the District Panchayat, viz., respondent No. 2 herein. The petitioner is the daughter of the said Dahyabhai Gohil. There is also no dispute that the father of the petitioner was found missing since 27th February, 1974, after he was transferred to Haldar.5. The petitioner and her mother being the only other family members of the said missing Dahyabhai Gohil made all possible attempts to locate and trace out the said missing Dahyabhai Gohil. In spite of strong...
Tag this Judgment!Food Corporation of India Employees' Association Vs. Food Corporation ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-30-2002
Reported in: (2003)2GLR1013
M.S. Shah, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Panesar, learned Counsel waives service of Rule for the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitions are taken up for final disposal today. 2. In Special Civil Application No. 3344 of 2002 under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the validity of Regulation No. 60 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 insofar as the said Regulation prescribes the procedure for imposition of minor penalties and has also challenged Circular No. 3 dated 11-9-2001 (Annexure 'E' to the petition) in providing imposition of penalty on account of transit loss, storage loss and down-gradation of foodgrains as being illegal, unreasonable and violative of principles of Natural Justice, The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to respondent No. 4-Food Corporation to evolve scientifically norms about the percentage of losses on account of transit loss, storage loss and down-gradation of foodgrains on the line ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Savailal H. Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-27-2002
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR395]; (2003)IILLJ641Guj
J.M. Panchal, J.1. The State of Gujarat through the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, R & B Division, Ahmedabad, has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and challenged legality of judgment and order dated September 30, 1992, rendered by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, in Recovery Application No. 1292 of 1986, by which application submitted by the respondent under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short) is accepted by the Labour Court, and the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 99,736.54 ps. to the respondent being the amount of overtime wages as contemplated by Section 14 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The facts, as they emerge from the record of the case, may be briefly stated:The respondent was employed as a Clerk -in Public Works Department, R & B Division, Ahmedabad on January 1, 1953, in the pay-scale of Rs. 130-240. He retired from service with effect from March 31, 1986, and the last pay d...
Tag this Judgment!Shatrushailya Digvijaysingh Jadeja Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR149(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a writ, direction or order of this court quashing and setting aside the orders dated February 9, 1999, passed by the respondent-Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot, rejecting the petitioner's declarations under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1991-92 and the petitioner has also prayed for a writ to direct the respondent to accept the petitioner's declarations under the said Scheme and to pass necessary orders under the said Scheme as required by law.2. The petitioner is an individual who has landed properties and various sources of income assessable under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as well as under the Wealth-tax Act. The petitioner was assessed to income-tax and wealth-tax for various years and on completion of the said assessments, certain tax liabilities arose. The petitioner was unable to discharge the said tax ...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Ram Food Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-2002
Reported in: 2002LC547(Gujarat); 2003(152)ELT285(Guj); (2003)4GLR544
K.A. Puj, J. 1. The petitioner/ in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India/ has prayed for quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 18-4-2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise/ Rajkot, confirming the amount of Rs. 15,69,046/- being the amount of Central excise duty against the petitioner, under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules read with proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 27-10-2000 rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 5,40,847/- as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The relevant facts, as they are emerged from the petition, are as under. 2. The petitioner is a partnership firm and carrying on its business of Onion Dehydration at Mahuva. The petitioner had obtained SSI Registration Certificate from the Industries Commissioner, Bhavnagar on 31-1-1992. The petitioner had also obtained Sales Tax Certificate on 1-4-1992 and thereafte...
Tag this Judgment!K.C. Sethi Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-2002
Reported in: III(2003)BC484; [2004]120CompCas801(Guj); 2003CriLJ1161; (2003)4GLR31
D.H. Waghela, J.1. This petition moved under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('the Cr.P.C.' for short) prays quashing of the Criminal Complaint No. 6690 of 1997 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pardi. The said complaint alleges against the accused, a company and the present petitioner, the offence under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short). The earlier attempt of the petitioner at discharge through the application at Exh. 13 has failed, by virtue of the order dated 3.1.2002 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pardi.2. The prima facie record of facts as revealed in the aforesaid order below Exh. 13 and about which there is no controversy at this stage is such that the petitioner had drawn three cheques dated 30.7.1997, 31.8.1997 and 6.9.1997 in favour of the complainant and the same were dishonoured on account of the payment having been stopped by the drawer. The...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kokilaben Wd/O. Naginbhai Rameshchandr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC12; 2004ACJ123; (2003)2GLR1479
K.R. Vyas, J. 1. Both these appeals have been filed by the appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd., challenging the common award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad (Rural), at Mirzapur, in M.A.C.P. Nos. 532, 533 and 458 of 1989, dated 21st September, 1992.By the impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed the said petitions.In M.A.C.P. No. 532 of 1989, The Tribunal held opponent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 4,06,000/- to the claimants with running interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of application till realisation, with a rider that if the opponents pay the said amount or deposit in the Tribunal within two months from the receipt of the copy of the award (the time consumed in preparing the copy shall not be taken into account in calculating this period of two months), on being applied within seven days of the award and they shall pay the interest at the rate of 12% with proportionate costs.In M.A.C.P. No. 533 of 1...
Tag this Judgment!Shatrushailya Digvijaysingh Jadeja Vs. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Guj)508
M.S. Shah, J. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a writ, direction or order of this court quashing and setting aside the order dated 9-2-1999, passed by the respondent-Commissioner, Rajkot, rejecting the petitioner's declarations under the Kar Vivad Samadhan scheme for assessment years 1984-85 to 1991-92 and the petitioner has also prayed for a writ to direct the respondent to accept the petitioner's declarations under the said scheme and to pass necessary orders under the said scheme as required by law.2. The petitioner is an individual who has landed properties and various sources of income assessable under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as well as under the Wealth Tax Act. The petitioner was assessed to income-tax and wealth-tax for various years and on completion of the said assessments, certain tax liabilities arose. The petitioner was unable to discharge the said tax liabilities which also result...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshchandra Shivlal Modi Vs. Appellate Authority, A.C. Raval
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-24-2002
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR956]; (2003)1GLR413; (2003)IILLJ104Guj
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. The present petitioner, being a teacher employed by respondent No. 3, has challenged in the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the judgment and order passed in Appeal No. 9 of 2000 dated 14th August, 2000, the order passed by the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.2. The net conclusion drawn by the appellate authority, rejecting the claim of the present petitioner, is that a teacher is not an 'employee' within the meaning of the Payment of Gratuity Act, and therefore, no benefit as claimed by the said teacher can be granted to his under the Act.3. This issue and legal controversy is squarely covered by a Full Bench Decision of this Court in the case of Shantiben L. Christian v. Administrative Officer, Ahmedabad Municipal School Board, rendered in S.C.A. No. 5272 of 1987, decided on 4th May, 2001 [2001 (2) GLR 1626 (FB) : 2001 (2) GLH 389 (FB)]. This decision leaves no doubt that a primary teacher serving under an e...
Tag this Judgment!Vicharti and Vimukt Jati Mahasangh and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)2GLR954
J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. Admit. Service of notice is waived by learned A.G.P., Ms. Harsha Devani for the respondents. Upon joint request and in view of the urgency in the matter, the Letters Patent Appeal is taken up for final hearing today itself. 2. The short question which has emerged for consideration in this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order of the learned single Judge, dated 4-9-2002, recorded in Special Civil Application No. 8509 of 2002, is as to whether the refusal of interim relief, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the writ petition, by the learned single Judge is vulnerable, and if yes, what should be the interim relief? 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.P., on this point. In fact, Letters Patent Appeal is circumscribed only challenging the interim order of the learned single Judge. Ordinarily, the exercise of discretion by the learned single Judge by invoking the provisions of Article 226, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »