Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2004)1GLR116
1. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, it would be proper to refer to the decision of the Karataka High COurt in the matter of YR Shenoy v. Syndicate Bank, reported in 2003 II LLJ page 977, para 11 and 12 as the same are important in view of the facts of the present case. Therefore, the observations made by the Karnataka High COurt in the said decisions are reproduced as under:'11. Re point No. (i): Right to gratuity was the subject matter of various decisions of the Supreme Court. The principle deducted from those decisions can be broadly stated as under:The fundamental principle underlying gratuity is that it is a retirement benefit for long service as a provision for old age. Demands of social security and social justice made it necessary to provide for payment of gratuity. On the enactment of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 a statutory liability was cast on the employer to pay gratuity. Pension and gratuity coupled with contributory Provident Fund are well recognized r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2004Guj230; (2004)1GLR179
Akshay H. Mehta, J.1. The present First Appeals and the Civil Applications arise from the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge [S.D.] Veraval dated 19th July, 2003 in Special Civil Suit No. 204 of 2001 (old Special Civil Suit No. 6 of 1995). Appellants of First Appeal No. 1520 of 2003 are original defendants nos. 9 and 10 and applicants of Civil Application No. 6588 of 2003 in First Appeal No. 1520 of 2003 are original defendants nos. 1 to 8. The appellants of First Appeal No. 1690 of 2003 are the original plaintiffs and so are the applicants of Civil Application No. 6312 of 2003. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in this judgment by their original position in the suit.1.1. First Appeal No. 1520 of 2003 has been admitted by this Court vide order dated 18th August, 2003. Civil Application No. 6588 of 2003 is filed for recalling the said order of admission on the ground that the First Appeal is not maintainable in this Court in the facts and circum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)185CTR(Guj)389; [2004]266ITR47(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. The appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, (the Act) was admitted on the following four questions of law :'(a) whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the liability of the appellant to ONGC in respect of gas consumption subsequent to 29th Jan., 1987, was contingent liability and was not allowable though the Gujarat High Court had dismissed the writ petition of the appellant challenging the said levy by its judgment delivered in financial year 1993-94 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not granted any stay and had earlier by its decision dt. 4th May, 1990, for the period prior to 29th Jan., 1987, upheld the right of ONGC to demand the price as per their decision which was not open to challenge by the appellant ? (b) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest amount claimed by the ONGC in respect of arrears of its claim for gas liability referred to in question No. (a) was also not allowable as the same was, contingent liabil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2004]138STC282(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner, by filing this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the impugned action of the respondent Municipal Corporation, including the customs duty element in the value of the goods for the purposes of levy of octroi from the petitioner-company in respect of the capital goods and raw materials imported by the petitioner-company, on the ground that it is illegal and without any authority of law. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the communications/ letters/orders dated November 6, 1996, March 15, 1997 and January 12, 1998 and claimed refund of the octroi duty collected by the respondent-corporation illegally and without any authority of law. The petitioner has further prayed for mandatory direction against the respondent-corporation directing it to forbear from collecting octroi duty from the petitioner-company in respect of the capital goods and raw materials imported by the petitioner-company without...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)3GLR2516
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Preambulatory Profile :The challenge in this Public Interest Litigation is referable to judicial scrutiny, determination and adjudication of the constitutionality of the exercise of legislative jurisdiction in enacting a statute for regularisation of unauthorised developments in urban development areas or development in other parts of the State and known as 'The Gujarat Regularisation of Unauthorised Development Act, 2001' ('Impugned Act') in the backdrop of two celebrated jurisprudential doctrines, viz. : (i) judicial review, and (ii) Ultra vires concept, which manifestly and evidently bring into sharp focus in microscopic evaluation a promising and panoramic profile of the issue :-'Political review of Judicial pronouncements by legislative power or judicial review of legislative jurisdiction and competence of two out of three chief organs of the State, viz. : Legislature and the Judiciary.'2. The petitioner claims to be a social worker and holding the office of Presi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2004]53SCL139(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The present Company Application is filed by the applicant Banks and judges summons is taken out seeking permission of this Court to allow the applicant Banks, being secured creditors, to initiate proceedings under the Provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Securitisation Act). In support of the judges summons, an affidavit was filed by one Mr. Girishbhai Ambalal Barot, Deputy Manager (Advances) of State Bank of India, RARB Branch, Ahmedabad, the applicant No.1 herein.2. It is the case of the applicant Banks that the four applicant Banks are the secured creditors of M/s.Volvo Steel Limited (presently known as Stanrose Steel Limited) and the properties and assets were charged with the applicant Banks and the applicant Banks are therefore considered to be the secured creditors of the said Company. It is further stated that the applicant Banks have initiated recove...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2004)1GLR244
Jayant Patel, J. 1. In all these group of petitions, the facts are common in two sets and the points arise for consideration are more or less common and, therefore, they are being considered by this common judgement.2. The petitions can broadly be classified into three categories: one set of petitions being preferred by non-minority institutions for the purpose for challenging the order passed by the authority for giving directions to accommodate and absorb surplus teachers of the other schools; second set of petitions being preferred by the institutions which are minority institutions; and, third set of petitions being preferred by the petitioners claiming as minority institutions, but, as per the stand of the State Government, they are neither identified as minority institutions nor recognised and there are also no sufficient details for extending special protection as that of the minority institution to such institutions. So far as the second and third set of petitions are concerned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2004)1GLR532
B.J. Shethna, J. 1. The appellants-original petitioners are husband and sons of late Smt. Shantaben Babulal Mehta. She purchased land bearing survey no.18 of village-Umargam, Dist. Valsad from one Vithal Kambali on 23rd February, 1956. Mutation Entry No. 1411 was effected on 28th April, 1956. However, concerned authority made an endorsement that the said land was fragment and the sale having made in contravention of the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'), therefore, the said mutation entry was required to be cancelled and accordingly it was cancelled on 7th August, 1957. This was done behind the back of Shantaben without giving any opportunity of hearing to her. Shantaben died in 1976 without the knowledge that mutation entry regarding the land in question purchased by her was cancelled by the authority on 7th August, 1957. Because of this her legal heirs and representatives i.e. her husband and her sons were also in know ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2004)1GLR559
H.K. Rathod, Adv.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Samir Sojatvala with learned advocate Mr. B.T.Rao for petitioner and learned AGP Mr. N.D.Gohil appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.2. According to the petitioner he was working as Chowkidar with the respondent No.1 since 12.4.1995 and his services were extended from time to time. The petitioner was required to go to see his wife and children when they were ill, however his leave was treated as leave without pay. Since last 5 years he is working as Chowkidar at the Collector's office bungalow and he has been given extension from time to time. He was given extension up to 31.12.1999. However, as he has proceeded on leave without prior permission, the services of the petitioner is terminated by the Collector without following any due process of law.3. Learned advocate Mr. Sojatvala has submitted that the petitioner is selected after the due process of law and he remained absent for the period from 22.9.1999 to 4.10.1999 which was considere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)3GLR2663
K.A. Puj, J.1.The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of the State Government to constitute Junagadh Municipal Corporation before the tenure/duration of the petitioner No.1 Municipality is over and that too, without dissolving the Municipality and without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner No.1 Municipality. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner has also moved draft amendment whereby the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the Notification No. KV-125/02/MNA/1001-CMR-41(i)P dtd. 13.09.2002 constituting the Municipal Corporation for the city of Junagadh and appointing the Collector as an Administrator of the Municipal Corporation.2.The petitioner has further prayed for quashing and setting aside the Notification dtd. 16.12.2002 whereby the Administrator was directed to exercise all the powers and perform all the functions and duties of the authorities referred to in Items...
Tag this Judgment!