Gujarat Court April 2006 Judgments
Amthabhai Varvabhai Rabari and 4 ors. Vs. Prahladji Valaji Rajput and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-29-2006
Reported in: (2007)1GLR20
H.N. Devani, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 15th April 2006 passed by the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby the Tribunal has allowed the Election petition filed by the respondents No. 1 to 11 herein and held that the nomination papers of the respondents No. 1 to 11 have been wrongly rejected; that the decision declaring the opponents No. 2 to 9 in the Election Petition, (namely, the petitioners and 3 others) as having been elected uncontested on 26/7/2005 was not in consonance with the provisions of law and the election rules and has set aside the election of the 11 candidates of the agriculturists' constituency of the respondent No. 16, Siddhpur Taluka Co-operative Purchase and Sales Union Limited, Siddhpur (hereinafter referred to as the respondent Union) who had been declared elected uncontested.2. The facts as emerging f...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Ganpat L. Kachhava and 4 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: (2006)3GLR2257
M.R. Shah, J.1. The Union of India, through its General Manager, Western Railway and another are constrained to approach this Court by way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders passed in Application No. OC-0500005 and in Application No. OC-0500010, by the Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad dtd.6/10/2005, by which the Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad has set aside order No. RCD/DLI/Judicial Policy/02-03 dtd.14/9/2005 issued by the Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in exercise of the powers under Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as Sthe Act for convenience), by which the Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal has issued an administrative order directing the claim application having pecuniary jurisdiction of more than Rs. 2 Lacs will be heard by the Division Bench and having...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs. Sabarkantha District Co Op ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-26-2006
Reported in: (2006)3GLR2339
D.A.Mehta, J.1. This Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner against the judgment and order dated 14.12.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.15669 of 2005.2. It is the say of the appellant-petitioner that a sum of Rs. 1,49,76,463.91 was outstanding as on 1.4.1996 from the respondents. On 22.3.1999 a sum of Rs. 13,48,296.98 was paid by the respondent and hence a sum of Rs. 1,36,28,167.30 was due to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a Summary Suit before the Board of Nominees at Ahmedabad, under Section 99(4) of the Cooperative Societies Act,1961 (the Act). The same was numbered as Lavad Summary Suit No. 731 of 2001. The respondent moved an application for leave to defend on 7.7.2001. On 24.10.2001 the Board of Nominees granted leave to defend upon condition that the respondent deposits an amount of Rs. 1 crore with the petitioner within a period of 25 days. The respondent went in Revision Application against the said order before the Gu...
Tag this Judgment!Suleman D. Khristi Vs. State of Gujarat and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-26-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR1035]; (2006)3GLR1955
D.H. Waghela, J.1. By the present petition invoking Articles 14, 16, 19, 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 23.1.2006 of the Deputy Secretary of the Government, by which the application of the petitioner for regularization of the period of suspension was rejected on the short ground that the period from 12.8.1992 to 4.9.1992 and 8.6.1998 to 30.4.2004 of deemed suspension could not be treated as the period spent on duty.2. The relevant facts in brief are that, while the petitioner was serving as temporary work assistant, he was arrested on 12.8.1992 pursuant to a complaint filed on 15.2.1992 regarding murder and other offences. The petitioner was released on bail on 4.9.1992. Thereafter, by order dated 8.6.1998, he was held guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for life. On the basis of that conviction, the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 22.6.1998 with effect from 8.6.1998. The appeal preferred by the petitioner w...
Tag this Judgment!Cadila Healthcare Limited Vs. LupIn Laboratories Ltd. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-26-2006
Reported in: (2006)3GLR2168; 2006(33)PTC68(Guj)
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Rule. Mr.Y.J.Trivedi, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr.J.B.Pardiwala, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 2.2. Cadila Healthcare Limited, applicant-original plaintiff has filed this application with a prayer that this Court may direct the Principal District Judge at Ahmedabad (Rural) to transfer the Civil Suit No. 4 of 1997 to the appropriate District Court. The said application was filed on 12.1.2006.3. The facts giving rise to this application are as under:-1. Cadila Healthcare Limited original plaintiff had filed Civil Suit No. 4/97 against M/s.Lupin Limited original defendant under the provisions of Trade Marks Act with a prayer that the Court may be pleased to pass an order of ad-interim injunction against the defendant restraining it to sale, manufacture and market the products under the trade mark CZ-3 and/or CZ and/or any other trademark which is deceptively similar or imitation of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Suo Motu Vs. State of Gujarat and 31 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC638; (2006)3GLR1960
ORDER (Per : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AKSHAY H.MEHTA)1. With the growing number of vehicular accidents in the city of Ahmedabad and other parts of the State, it has become a matter of grave concern of not only the Government, law enforcement authority but also of every citizen. Safety of the citizen is of paramount interest. Unfortunately the same is being overlooked by all concerned and the provisions relating to vehicular traffic are being flagrantly violated. For example the Sarkhej Gandhinagar Highway was not having heavy vehicular traffic some years back but with the lifting of ban on construction on the green belt, number of commercial buildings, restaurants, clubs, religious temples and educational institutions have come up, not to ignore this Court. That has increased the vehicular traffic especially in the form of two wheelers and private cars substantially. This is over and above the continuous flow of heavy vehicles since this road serves link between South Gujarat and North Gujar...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Ship Trading Corpn. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-2006
Reported in: 2008[11]STR428
ORDERD.A. Mehta, J.1. The facts are not in dispute that issue regarding valuation of goods were pending before the Tribunal in appeal filed by the Department. The Tribunal has decided the appeal without giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee and without service of the notice on the assessee-petitioner. Nowhere in the reply to the petition, respondent has stated that service is effected. Even a letter was written by the assessee to the Registrar of the Tribunal at Mumbai. He also did not say that notice has been served, he simply said that notice was sent.2. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter with a direction to decide the appeal after opportunity of hearing given to the petitioner.3. Counsel for the petitioner also brought to our notice that on 12-9-2005 this Court has directed him to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to show his bona fide, and that amount was deposited. Now he prays that the said amount be refunded. Considering the above,...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Gujarat Rajya Karmachari ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR673]
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. 1. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (the Corporation for brevity), through its Legal Advisor is before this Court challenging the order passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference (IT) No. 123 of 2003, below Exh. 8 dated 4th December 2003. The facts giving rise to the present petition are necessary to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter. The same are as under. The petitioner Corporation had issued GSO NO.1118 of 2003 and by that the special pay, which was paid by the Corporation, was withdrawn. This action of the petitioner-corporation was challenged by the respondent herein-Gujarat Rajya T Karmachari Mandal, through its General Secretary by filing Special Civil Application No. 5062 of 2003. The papers of the said Special Civil application were called for perusal. In the said Special Civil Application it was prayed that, 10(a) Declaring that the action of respondent No.1-Corporation of stopping payment of 10% special pay ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jayantilal D. Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Guj)271
H.N. Devani, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench SA has referred the following two questions under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of Commissioner of Income Tax.[1] Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Income Tax Officer to exclude 50% share of profit of Biren Nandish Trust from the income of the assessee?[2] Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the provisions of Section 60 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked.2. The assessment year is 1983-84 and the corresponding accounting period is Samvat Year 2038.3. Heard Mr.Manish R. Bhatt, the learned senior standing counsel for the applicant. Though served, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent assessee.4. As can be seen seen from the impugned order dated 26th September, 1991 passed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has merely followed its earlier decision in assessee's own case for assessment ye...
Tag this Judgment!Outdoor Advertising Owners Association and anr. Vs. K. Kailashnathan a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Guj212; (2006)3GLR2362
M.R. Shah, J.1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The Special Civil Application No. 1610 of 2006 is treated as main matter. 2. Special Civil Application No. 1610 of 2006 is filed by Outdoor Advertising Owners' Association and rest of the Special Civil Applications are filed by individual members of the said Association who are in the business of outdoor advertising in the shape of placing of hoardings and signage in and around the city of Ahmedabad as well as within the area of AUDA. By way of these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the respective petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order declaring the action of the respondents No. 1 to 4 namely, AUDA and its Officers in indulging into demolition of hoardings of the members of the aforesaid Association and the respective petitioners as being bad in law, illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »