Gujarat Court November 2008 Judgments
Yogesh M. Vyas Vs. Registrar, High Court of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-14-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR14
Mohit S. Shah, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the High Court order dated 27-4-2005 and the Government notification dated 16-8-2005 compulsorily retiring the petitioner, a Judicial Officer holding the post of Civil Judge (S.D.) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, from service after a disciplinary inquiry.2. The facts leading to filing of this petition, briefly stated, are as under:2.1. The petitioner who was born on 7-5-1955, joined judicial service on 9-11-1981. After his appointment to the post of Civil Judge (J.D.) and J.M.F.C, the petitioner was posted at Navsari, and was thereafter, transferred to different places, such as Pardi, Valsad, Devdhar, Bharuch, Savli, Visnagar and Baroda. The petitioner was thereafter promoted to the post of Civil Judge (S.D.) on 10-6-1996 and was posted at Amreli.2.2. The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 16-12-1997 (which order was implemented on 17-12-1997) in view of the contemplated ...
Tag this Judgment!Killol V. Shelat Vs. Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-14-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR387
Akil Kureshi, J.1. This group of petitions involves similar questions of law and facts. The petitions have therefore been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Essentially what is in challenge in this group of petitions is the prescription of 'road line' by the Commissioner of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. The petitioners stand to lose part of their land/buildings in such road line. They have therefore, challenged eviction notices issued by the Corporation under Section 213 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act (B.P.M.C. Act for short). The petitioners have also challenged the vires of Section 210(1)(a) of the B.P.M.C. Act.3. Few relevant facts may be noted at this stage. Since, facts involved in all the petitions are substantially similar, they may be noticed as stated in Special Civil Application No. 7207 of 1998 (sic).3.1. The petitioner is the owner of superstructure i.e. a bungalow constructed on a plot of land alloted to him by one B...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Kharidia and ors. Vs. Max. New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-14-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Guj57
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. Order of the Insurance Ombudsman (Maharashtra & Goa), at Mumbai, dated 15th February, 2005, rejecting claim of the petitioners for payment of sum assured under the Stepping Stone Policies was challenged before this Court. Learned Single Judge found no infirmity in the order passed by the Insurance Ombudsman and dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been preferred.2. Short facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are stated as follows:2.1 Smt. Sapna Premal Jhaveri, applied for two Stepping Stone Policies for a sum assured of Rs. 1 lakh each, with additional Personal Accident Benefit and Dreaded Disease riders for Rs. 1 lakh each under Proposal Nos. 239463425 and 239463417. Proposer filled in proposal form for the Policies on 10.8.2004 and initial payments were remitted to Mumbai General Office. Payment receipt was issued on 12.8.2004. Smt. Sapna Premal Jhaveri, unfortunately died due to a road accident on 15.8.2004 at Ahme...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavpura Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Shah Bhimani Chemical ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-14-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Guj78
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. This writ petition has been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for a declaration that Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is unconstitutional. Prayer has also been made for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash order dated 2.11.2007 passed by the City Civil Court, rejecting request for execution of the arbitration award.2. Petitioner, a Mercantile Co-operative Bank, is having an award in its favour for Rs. 17,95,81,261.75 paise. Bank filed Darkhast No. 339 of 2007 before the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad for enforcement of that award. In fact, respondents had given three cheques for a total amount of Rs. 2 lakhs towards payment of the amount due to the Bank. Cheques could not be encashed as by the time contesting respondents herein moved an application before the City Civil Court for setting aside the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity 'the Act'). By applying t...
Tag this Judgment!Satellite Television Asian Region Ltd. and anr. Vs. Kunvar Ajay Design ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-14-2008
Reported in: [2009]148CompCas62(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner-company, namely, Satellite Television Asian Region Ltd., and Star India P. Ltd., have filed this petition under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 19,91,78,218. being the charges for telecasting company's commercial on Star channels along with interest as well as finance charges of Rs. 2,04,72,314 thereon till November 30, 2002, thus aggregating to Rs. 21,96,50,532.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the first petitioner is engaged in the business of telecasting entertainment and other programmes and also commercials on various satellite television channels. Star India P. Ltd., the second petitioner is an independent representative in India for procuring the advertisements to be broadcast on Star channels being run by the first petitioner. The second petitioner accordingly procures instructions for advertisements from advertisers for telecast on Star channels belonging to the fi...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Siddharth Petro Products Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-13-2008
Reported in: 2009(162)LC246(Gujarat); 2009[13]STR18
D.N. Mehta, J.1. This appeal was admitted on 18-10-2007 and the following substantial question of law was formulated at the time of admission:Whether the Commissioner who is directed by Central Board of Excise and Customs to file appeal under Section 35E(1) read with Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, validly authorise the Superintendent (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs to present such appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, and will the appeal so presented be maintainable or not?2. However, after hearing the learned advocates appearing for both the sides the Court finds it appropriate to reformulate the question as under:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case provisions of Section 35E(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permit any other person, other than the Commissioner of Central Excise, who is directed by Central Board of Excise and Customs to make an application under Section 35E(1) of the Act to the Appellate Tribunal, to make such an application?3....
Tag this Judgment!Marwadi Shares and Finance Pvt. Ltd. Company Vs. Kishorkumar Nagjibhai ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-12-2008
Reported in: (2009)2GLR938
M.R. Shah, J.1. As common question of law and facts arise in there group of petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The short but an interesting question of law posed for the consideration of this Court is whether in view of bye-laws in Chapter XI of National Stock Exchange of India Limited, whether the jurisdiction of civil suit is barred or the Civil Court's jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between petitioner and the respondent have been ousted?1.1. Special Civil Application No. 24299 of 2007 is filed by the petitioner-original defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 6-7-2007 passed below application Exh. 27 in Special Civil Suit No. 233 of 2001 (New Number Regular Civil Suit No. 337 of 2005) passed by the learned 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh by which the learned trial Court has dismissed the said application submitted by the pet...
Tag this Judgment!intajamuddIn Yasinbhai Ansari and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-12-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR659
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. This petition was filed on 17-5-2006. The Court (Coram : Bankim N. Mehta, J.) issued 'Notice' returnable on 13-6-2006 and granted interim relief of maintaining 'status quo' with regard to the disputed land, whereon the petitioners have constructed superstructure. On the next date, the matter was placed before the Division Bench consisting of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and D. A. Mehta, J. The matter was thereafter adjourned from time to time. The interim relief granted on 17-5-2006 was continued. On 26-7-2006, the Division Bench consisting of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and D. A. Mehta, J. passed the following order:Reply has been filed in this group of petitions.Learned Counsel for the petitioners prays time to file rejoinder.Rejoinder be filed on or before 15th August, 2006.List for final disposal on 18-8-2006.The matter was thereafter listed on board on 28-9-2006. The Court passed the following order:Though, directed to file rejoinder by 15th August, 2006,...
Tag this Judgment!Devavrat Shivaprasad Bhatt Vs. Housing Urban Development Corporation ( ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-11-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Guj43; (2009)1GLR183
Jayant Patel, J. 1. In all the petitions, as common questions arise for consideration, they are being considered by this common judgement.2. Heard Mr. Thakore for the petitioners in all the petitions, Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 Corporation in all the petitions, respondent No. 2 is joined in capacity as the recovery officer of the Tribunal who has exercised the statutory power pursuant to the Judgement and Award of the Tribunal and therefore, no individual interest exist of him. Respondent No. 3 is the custodian of respondent No. 4 Society, who has remained personally present and has made submission as recorded hereinafter. The presence of respondent No. 5 as such is not required since respondent No. 5 floated the scheme at the initial stage and in any case, no Judgement and Award has been passed against respondent No. 5 by the Tribunal. The matter is heard for final disposal.3. The short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioners are the members of V...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Cylinder and Container Ltd. and anr. Vs. Essar Steel Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-11-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Guj116
ORDERM.R. Shah, J.1. Rule, Shri Keyur Gandhi, learned advocate with M/s. Nanavati Associates waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners original defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and/or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 29.9.2008 passed by the learned Second Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat passed below Exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 256 of 2003, by which the learned trial Court has directed the petitioners original defendants to furnish security of Rs. 17 lacs in the form of Bank Guarantee under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.3. Respondent-plaintiff had instituted the Special Civil Suit No. 256 of 2003 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Surat to recover Rs. 16,22,05...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »