Gujarat Court August 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Narendra C. Bhatt Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: (2008)2GLR1421
C.K. Buch, J.1. The appellant-orig convict (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') has preferred this appeal under Section 374 read with Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31st July 1991, passed by the learned Special Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad City, in Special Case No. 12 of 1989, whereby the learned trial Judge has held the appellant guilty of the charge of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.2. The legality and validity of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been challenged on various grounds as mentioned in paragraph No. 7 of the memo of the appeal. Shri A.D. Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri A.J. Desai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, have taken this Court through the judgment and order of conviction and sentence under challenge and so also the b...
M.K. Construction Company Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-06-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Guj223; 2008(1)ARBLR277(Gujarat)
ORDERR.M. Doshit, J.1. This is a petition preferred by the Contractor against the Order dated 9th February, 1996 made by the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration. Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Tribunal') on Transferred Arbitration Reference No. 18 of 1995 in so far as the petitioner-contractor has been directed to pay the court-fees as per the provisions of the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Rules').2. The petitioner was a Government contractor. He had certain claims against the State. For resolution of the said claims, the petitioner had approached the Court of the learned Civil Judge (SD), Himatnagar under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for reference of the disputes to the Arbitrator. Under the prevailing rules, the petitioner had paid the Court fees of Rs. 15/-. The said Special Civil Suit No. 44 of 1986 was allowed by the learned Judge. By Order dated 11th Jul...
Kailash Raguvir Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-06-2007
Reported in: (2007)3GLR2530
J.R. Vora, J.1. A crime came to be registered against four accused, namely, (1) Jatashankar Asharam Pande, (2) Kailash Raghuvir Mishra, (3) Gitaben, wife of Jatashankar Asharam, and (4) Rajkumari, wife of Kailash Raghuvir, all residing at Balmukund Chawl at Shahpur Mill Compound, Ahmedabad before Karanj Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 325, 323 to read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accused were further charged for the offence punishable under Section 504 of Indian Penal Code as well as for the offence punishable under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. In pursuance of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by Karanj Police Station against the accused before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Ahmedabad and the said case thereafter was committed to the court of Sessions situated at Ahmedabad. After fullfledged trial, vide judgment and order delivered by learned Addl.City Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Ahmedabad on 17th October ...
Ranjanben Ghanshyambhai Gadhavi Vs. State of Gujarat and 4 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-03-2007
Reported in: (2007)3GLR2690
ORDERH.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Paresh Upadhyay for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. Hukam Singh for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and learned advocate Mr. J.B. Pardiwala for respondent Nos.4 and 5.2. The husband of the petitioner - Mr. G.M. Gadhvi has expired while working as City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad on 31.3.2006. According to petitioner, as per Gujarat Civil Services Pension Rules, 2002, the petitioner is entitled to receive Rs. 15,713/- per month as a family pension plus allowances thereof. This amount was not sanctioned, therefore, present petition is filed.3. The husband of the petitioner had worked as a Lecturer in private Law College for which he was sanctioned pension and in the said pension payment order, the family pension of Rs. 2895/- was also sanctioned to the petitioner, which is now paid. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, family pension has been denied to the petitioner by the respondents on the ground that claim of two sets of family pension by the p...
State of Gujarat Vs. Ramkrushna Gopal Soni and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-03-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR330]; (2008)1GLR436; (2008)ILLJ608Guj
R.S. Garg, J.1. The petitioner-State Government, being aggrieved by the order dated 6th April, 1999 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Vadodara, is before this Court with a submission that the Appellate Authority was absolutely unjustified in directing the State Government to make the payment of gratuity to the claimant/workman-Ramkrushna Gopal Soni, though it has come on record that Ramkrushna Gopal Soni was an employee of Girls Remand Home run by a registered Trust.2. Shri I.M. Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioner-State, submitted that a perusal of the order made by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Annexure-B to the petition) would show that the dispute was between the workman - Ramkrushna Gopal Soni and the Secretary of the Remand Home and the State was not a party and the final order was made by the Controlling Authority against the Trust only. It is submitted that the State Governm...
In Re: Norfolk Infotech P. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-03-2007
Reported in: [2008]142CompCas752(Guj); [2009]89SCL381(Guj)
Jayant Patel, J.1. The present petitions are for sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation. The petitioner of Company Petition No. 33 of 2007, is the transferee company and the petitioners of Company Petitions Nos. 3D, 31 and 32 of 2007, are the transferor companies. The scheme which is proposed to be sanctioned is produced at annexure C in the petitions.2. Company Applications Nos. 38, 39, and 40 of 2007, were preferred for compliance to the statutory provisions of holding of the requisite meeting for considering the scheme of amalgamation. However, vide order dated February 2, 2007, passed by this Court the meeting of the equity shareholders was dispensed with and there were no security creditors and unsecured creditors in Company Applications Nos. 38 and 39 of 2007. Whereas in case of Company Application No. 40 of 2007, the meeting of the equity shareholders and unsecured creditors were dispensed with. It may be recorded that it is on account of the concerned letters produced by the ap...
Executive Engineer Vs. Harisingh Modhbhai Gadhvi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-03-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR334]; (2008)ILLJ653Guj
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Sandhya Natani for the petitioner and Mr. H.S. Mulia, learned Advocate appearing for respondent workman in this petition.2. Through this petition, petitioner is challenging the award made by the Labour Court, Surendranagar, in Reference (L.C.S.) No.77 of 2001 dated 05.1.2007 whereby Labour has allowed the reference in part and granted reinstatement in favour of the workman concerned without back wages for interim period by directing the petitioner establishment to reinstate the workman concerned on his post within thirty days from the date of publication of award without back wages for interim period.3. Learned AGP Ms. Sandhya Natani for petitioner submits that before the Labour Court, detailed reply was filed by the petitioner wherein none of the averments made in the statement of claim were admitted. The petitioner had disputed working days and working years of the respondent workman. Continuous service of the workman c...
Managing Director, Lkp Merchant Finance Ltd. and anr. Vs. Jaiminiben H ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-03-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR1088]
K.M. Mehta, J.1. The Managing Director, LKP Merchant Finance Ltd., and Shri Paragbhai C. Mehta, Executive Director, the appellants - orig. defendants, have filed this First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.2.2003 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 5050 of 1995. By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned Judge was pleased to declare that the impugned order of termination dated 1.9.1995 passed against Jaiminiben Vyas, orig. plaintiff respondent herein is illegal, unreasonable and bad in law being in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play and without giving any notice to the plaintiff. The learned Judge has further held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the total amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. From the defendants from the date of filing of the suit till realisation.2. The appeal was filed somewhere in May 2003 and various orders have been passed from time to time. However,...
Salam Abdul Hanifshaibhai thro' Wife Hajrabibi Salam Vs. the District ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-02-2007
Reported in: (2008)1GLR378
D.H. Waghela, J.1. The petitioner-detenu has, through his wife, invoked Articles 21, 22 and 226 of the Constitution with a prayer to set aside the order dated 20.12.2006 by which he was ordered to be detained under the provisions of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short, 'PASA'). According to the grounds of detention furnished to the petitioner, he is alleged to have indulged in bootlegging and five cases of offences punishable under the Prohibition Act have been registered against him. Out of those five cases, he is stated to have been arrested and released on bail in three cases while he was wanted in two cases. In the first case registered at Kamrej Police Station vide III-C.R. No. 261 of 2006, he is alleged to be the owner of 780 bottles of liquor of different brands which were caught while being transported on 26.6.2006. When the petitioner was arrested on 8.10.2006 pursuant to that case, he is stated to have admitted his guilt in his s...
Atulya Yogendra Mafatlal Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-01-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR389]; (2008)1GLR301; (2008)IILLJ80Guj
ORDERH.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. B.T. Rao for the petitioner. 2. In pursuance to the direction issued by this Court on 22.6.2007 in SCA No. 15849 of 2007, a representation was made by the petitioner on 5.7.2007 raising certain contentions in respect to provisions of Section 529A and 530 of the Companies Act and other contentions in the said representation. The respondent PF Authority has passed an order on 18.7.2007 after taking into account the representation of the petitioner and rejected the same.3. Learned advocate Mr.Rao submitted that whatever contentions raised in representation are not dealt with by the respondent PF Authority and the respondent PF Authority has also not considered the parri passu claim along with secured creditors as per the provisions of Section 529A and 530 of the Companies Act. He further submitted that a moment the company is wound up and OL is appointed, then, the present petitioner _ the Director is ceased to be the Director of the Compa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »