Gujarat Court May 2005 Judgments

Gas Authority of India Ltd. Vs. the State of Gujarat and ors.

Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Gujarat

1. These first appeals have been preferred by the appellant against the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos.1649-1654 of 2001 with W.P. Nos. 110,615/2000, 213/2003, 222/2004, 534 & 540/2001, Civil Appeals Nos. 926, 927, 928, 929........../2005 and SLP Nos. 6110, 6189, 6251, 6281/2002. In said matters, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has remanded the matters for being heard and dispose off by the appellate Tribunal in accordance with provision of Rule 67 of the Gujarat Sales Tax 1970. As per direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court this Tribunal had issued notice to Government of U.P., Government of Rajasthan, Government of M.P., Government of NCT of Delhi, Government of Haryana and Commissioner of Sales Tax Gujarat State Ahmedabad.2. In response to the said notice Commissioner of Sales Tax to the Ahmedabad, representative of State of Haryana and State of Rajasthan being heard and filed that submissions other State have not filed that appearance.3. Appel...

Swastik Pesticides and Chemicals thro' Vijaykumar Vs. the State of Guj ...

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: (2005)3GLR2027

C.K. Buch, J.1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), the petitioner-orig.accused no. 2 of Criminal Case No. 1462 of 2001, pending in the file of ld.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar, has prayed for quashing of Criminal Complaint as well as prosecution instituted thereon in reference to the provisions of Section 3(K)(1), 17(1)(a) and 18(1)(c) of the Insecticide Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioner-orig.accused No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused-company') is a registered company under the Companies' Act, 1956, involved in manufacturing insecticides. It is contended by the petitioner-accused that the accused-company also possesses ISO-9001 certificate having its registered office at New Delhi. The accused-company is also having various sales and marketing offices in various parts of India and one of such offices is located in the Cit...

P.K. Roshan Vs. State of Gujarat

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: (2005)3GLR1894

C.K. Buch, J.1. The present Cri. Revision Application is preferred under Section 397 R/w 401 of CrPC against the order passed by ld. Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), (Court No. 3), Surat in Criminal Case No. 4/2002 dated 11.07.2002. Vide order under challenge, ld. JMFC, after inquiry conducted under sec. 202 CrPC, issued process against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 323, 504, 506(1) and 294(b) of Indian Penal Code. Respondent No. 2 Rajendrasingh Madansingh Chauhan is the complainant of Criminal Case No. 4/2002 (hereinafter after referred to as the complainant for convenience). The complaint against the present petitioner along with three other accused persons came to be filed by the complainant on 13.03.2002 alleging that the petitioner and other accused named in the complaint (Annex.A P.15) committed alleged offence on 03.03.2002 when the complainant was at his residence with his family during the communal riots and public disturbance that had taken place in di...

Malikbhai Muradali Lakhani Vs. Salmaben Malikbhai Lakhani

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: I(2006)DMC100

M.D. Shah, J.1. Rule in both these applications. In Criminal Revision Application No. 364 of 2004, learned Advocate Ms. Amee Yagnik waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and 2 while Mr. K.P. Raval, learned A.P.P. waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent State while in Criminal Revision Application No. 392 of 2004, learned Advocate Mr. Viren C. Dave waives service on behalf of the respondent No. 1 while learned A.P.P. Mr. K.P. Raval waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 2.1.1 With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing on both sides, these matters are taken up for final hearing and disposal.2. These two cross applications, namely, Criminal Revision Application No. 364 of 2004 is preferred by the applicant-husband while Criminal Revision Application No. 392 of 2004 is preferred by the applicant-wife against the same judgment and order dated 5th March 2004 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Misc. Applic...

Devraj Ramdhawan Since Decd. Thro His Heir and L.R. Vs. Rohit Mills Lt ...

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: [2007]139CompCas117(Guj); (2005)3GLR1880; (2006)ILLJ407Guj; [2006]72SCL219(Guj)

Sharad D. Dave, J. 1. In this group of petitions, since the common question of law and facts are involved and with the consent of the parties, the matters are being disposed of by this common order.2. In these petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the judgments and orders passed by Industrial Court, Ahmedabad in Appeal Nos. 52 of 2002 to 73 of 2002 at Annexure `E' in the compilation and a further prayer is made to direct respondent nos.1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioners with full back wages, continuity of service and other consequential reliefs.3. It appears from the record that respondent no.1 mill was declared as sick unit by the Board of Industrial Finance & Reconstruction, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `BIFR' for short) and as per the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `SICA' for short),...

Dr. Nalini V. Dave Vs. Government of Gujarat and ors.

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: [2006(108)FLR100]; (2005)3GLR1844

J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The petitioner, in this petition, after having worked for 34 years, as an Academician in the Faculty of Commerce of respondent No. 3-University, has not been paid the pensionary benefits, including Gratuity and other incidental benefits, arising out of the service and employment with respondent No. 3, though she has retired almost 5 years before; and having failed in receiving due and payable pensionary benefits, and despite repeated and sincere efforts, as a measure of last resort, she has knocked the doors of this Court, by invocation of the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia seeking directions against the respondent-authorities for payment of retiral dues and benefits.2. With a view to evaluate and examine the merits of the petition and the challenge against it, let there be, at the outset, spectrum of material facts and skeleton projection of the profile of the basis for claiming the pensionary benefits, which have been denied, despi...

Suo Motu Vs. the State of Gujarat

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: (2005)3GLR2088

Akshay H. Mehta, J.Rule. Mr. RC Kodekar, Ld. APP waives service of rule.1. This is a suo-motu proceeding taken up by this Court in view of certain shocking facts that had come to its notice from the newspaper report. Kantilal Shivlal Patel [Amrutiya] has become the subject matter of the proceedings or the focus of our attention on account of the said newspaper report since it revealed that though he has been convicted for a serious offence like murder and conspiracy under section 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code [for short 'IPC'] and he has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life, he had been enjoying A Class comforts in the Civil Hospital under a false pretext of having a heart ailment.2. The said convict prisoner was prosecuted along with several other accused for having committed murder of one Prakash Raveshiya on account of political rivalry. His trial took place in the Court of learned Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Gondal in Sessions Case No. 34 of 2000, who by judgment...

Oil and Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Engineering Majdoor Sangh

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: (2005)3GLR2152; (2006)ILLJ587Guj

ORDERS FOR CONTINGENT EMPLOYEES OF THE OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION' in force since 15.7.1962 applied to all workmen called 'contingent employees' employed in various units of the ONGC excluding the regular employees to whom other statutory rules applied. Relevant Clause 2 of those Standing Orders reads as under:'2. (i) Classification of workmen: The contingent employees of the Commission shall hereafter be classified as:(a) temporary.(b) casual.(ii) A workmen who has been on the rolls of the Commission and has put in not less than 180 days of attendance in any period of 12 consecutive months shall be a temporary workman, provided that a temporary workman who has put in not less than 240 days of attendance in any period of 12 consecutive months and who possesses minimumqualifications prescribed by the Commission may be considered for conversion as regular employee.(iii) A workman who is neither temporary nor regular shall be considered as 'casual workman'.The Standing Orders also pro...

Jhaverbhai Savjibhai Patel Through P.O.A. Holder Vs. Kanchanben Nathub ...

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: (2005)3GLR2233

Jayant Patel, J. 1. Leave to delete Respondent No.7 from Special Civil Application No.8559/2005.2. With the consent of the parties, both the matters are taken up for final hearing today and as in both the petitions there are more or less common issues and common challenge, they are being considered together by this common order.3. RULE. Mr. A.J. Patel, learned Counsel appears for the private respondents and waives service of notice of Rule. Mr. Mengdey, learned AGP appears for State authorities and waives service of notice of Rule for respondent authorities.4. Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it appears that the common question arise for consideration of the Court is as to whether the entry mutated on the basis of the registered sale deed could have been ordered to be cancelled by the authority in toto or the authority ought to have allowed the revenue entry to be continued with the qualification and clarification that the same would be subject to the outcome...

Jitendrakumar Jayantilal Dhruva Vs. State of Gujarat

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: (2005)3GLR2204

C.K. Buch, J.1. The appellant is the original accused/convict of Special Case No. 5 of 1984 tried by the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar, for the offences punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code r/w. Sections 5(1)(A), 5(1)(D) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned Judge imposed different penalties on conviction i.e. under Section 5(1)(D) r/w. 5(2) of the Act rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.500/- and six months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Special Judge has acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 5(1)(A) r/w. 5(2) of the Act.2. To appreciate the rival contentions placed before the Court, it will be necessary to have a close look on the case of the prosecution.2.1 According to the prosecution, the petitioner is a public servant serving as Talati-cum-Mantri of village Nana Thavariya, Dist. Jamnaga...