Gujarat Court February 2008 Judgments
O.L. of Jupiter Industries Ltd. Vs. Mansukhbhai Raghavji Joshi and 6 o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: [2009]148CompCas727(Guj); 2008GLH(1)718
K.A. Puj, J.1. A default committed by the accused persons under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 1956 and to issue process against them and to try and punish them in accordance with the provisions of law. The Official Liquidator has also prayed for the direction to the accused persons to submit forthwith the statement of affairs to him as on the date of winding up order dated 17.04.2000.2. This Court has issued process On 17.01.2001. On 10.08.2001, this Court has passed an order on the basis of the two sets of documents tendered by Shri S.S. Panesar, learned advocate appearing for accused Nos. 2 to 4 and directed the office to issue process against Mr. Ramesh Chhabildas Varia and Mr. Ramjibhai Devjibhai Vachhani, accused Nos. 6 and 7 herein.3. On 24.11.2005, this Court has passed further order on the basis of the affidavits filed by accused Nos. 2 to 4 directing them to file further affidavits along with necessary evidence including copy of Form No. 32, acknowledgment given by the ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat and 2 ors. Vs. Kiritkumar Bhikhabhai Vala
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR496]; (2008)2GLR1138
R.H. Shukla, J. 1. The present Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant-State challenging the judgment and order dated 26.8.2004 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 53/2003 passed by the learned Jt. District Judge and 3rd Fast Track Court, Junagadh, confirming the judgment and oder passed by the trial court in Regular Civil Suit No. 111/2001 by judgment and order dated 29.4.2003 raising substantial question of law as framed by the Court while admitting the appeal and also the substantial questions of law that have been posed in the Memo of Appeal. While admitting the appeal, the Court has posed the following substantial question of law:Whether the Civil Court could have condoned the delay caused in applying for compassionate appointment by the respondent-original plaintiff by going beyond the resolution of the Government?The learned Government Pleader submitted the substantial questions of law at the time of hearing as follows, which were required to be considered in light of the observat...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Bakuleshbhai Hasmukulal Vs. Kaushikkumar Kantilal Modi and 63 ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Guj133; (2008)3GLR2352
Akil Kureshi, J.1. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 8.8.2007 below exh.6 in Insolvency petition No. 7/2007 passed by learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad.2. The petitioner had instituted the said Insolvency petition. The petitioner is the debtor. In his petition, he filed application exh.6 and stated that for issuance of public notice, substantial expenditure would be incurred. His financial condition is weak. No prejudice will be caused to anyone if such a notice is dispensed with and instead Court permits that such a notice be published only in official gazette. On this application, learned Judge passed his order on 18.8.2007 which is challenged in this petition.3. Before me, learned advocate Ms. Paurami Seth contended that financial position of the petitioner would not permit him to incur the expenditure required for public notice. Public notice is not mandatory and in lieu thereof publication in official gazette can be permitted. My attention was drawn to the decision of...
Tag this Judgment!Samirbhai Haji Mustufa Bajariya Vs. Rizwana D/O. Haji Daudibhai Patuk ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR109
H.N. Devani, J.1. Rule. Mr. M.A. Kharadi, learned Advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 2-State of Gujarat.2. Having regard to the facts of the case and with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today.3. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the order dated 13th September, 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod in Criminal Revision Application No. 51 of 2007 and prays that the application Exh. 28 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 168 of 2005 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dahod, be allowed.4. The facts of the case stated briefly are that marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 was solemnized under the Muslim Law. Thereafter, on account of differences between the parties, the marriage resulted in a divorce. Subsequently, th...
Tag this Judgment!Durlabhai Narsibhai Jogia and anr. Vs. Appellate Tribunal for Forfeite ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2379; (2008)2GLR1216
M.D. Shah, J.1. The petitioners have instituted the present petition by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2-competent authority dated 31-5-2002 produced at Annexure SE to the petition which is confirmed by the Tribunal vide order dated 1st February, 2005 produced at Annexure SF to the petition and for a declaration that none of the properties mentioned in the said order are illegally acquired properties.2. The facts leading to the institution of the present petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioners nos.1 and two are the husband and wife respectively. The petitioner No. 1 Durlabji Narsibhai Jogia came to be detained under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (C...
Tag this Judgment!Dena Bank Vs. Shri Sihor Nagarik Sahakari Bank Limited and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Guj110; (2008)2GLR1796
Akil Kureshi, J.1. Petitioner, Dena Bank, has in the present petition challenged an order dated 8th October, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sihor below application Ex.5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 91/07. The petitioner has also challenged an order dated 8th October,2007 passed by the District Magistrate in case No. 30/2006-07. The petitioner has also challenged an order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. 2-A of 2007.2. Some facts necessary to appreciate the rival contentions be noted at this stage.3. The petitioner is a nationalized bank. One of the branches of the petitioner bank is situated at Sihor in Bhavnagar district. The branch is located in a building known as Gautam Shopping Center which is owned by respondent No. 2 herein. The branch office of the petitioner Bank is situated on the first floor of the building. The petitioner bank claims to be the tenant of the said premises since 1986, having been inducted by respondent No. 2 herein.4. In the...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Zalak Cold Storage P. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: [2008]144CompCas364(Guj); [2009]90SCL69(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner, namely, Smt. Javnika Naresh Raval, ex-director of Zalak Cold Storage P. Ltd., has filed this petition under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, praying for restoration of the company, namely, Zalak Cold Storage P. Ltd., to the register of companies maintained in the office of Registrar of Companies in the interest of justice and equity. The petitioner has also prayed for passing other incidental consequential and supplementary orders and directions as may be necessary and deemed fit by this Court.2. This Court has issued notice on February 5, 2008, to the Registrar of Companies. Pursuant to the notice, the Registrar of Companies has filed his appearance through his counsel Mr. Harin P. Raval and has also issued instructions to his counsel vide letter dated February 18, 2008, which is placed on record.3. Mr. N.K. Pahwa, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the first director of the company and was also the ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Hanu Dharsi Vaghri
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2221; 2008GLH(1)745
M.R. Shah, J.1. Present appeal is preferred by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 15/1/2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 218 of 1998 acquitting the respondent herein original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 393, 395, 398, 342, 352, 511 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1)(b) and (a) of the Arms Act and under Section 37(D) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act.2. That a Criminal Complaint being CR No. I-356 of 1994 was lodged by one Kanjibhai Fakirbhai Vaghela against six accused persons, inclusive of the respondent herein original accused, with Rajkot Taluka Police Station for the offences alleged to have happened on 21/7/1998. However, initially charge-sheet came to be filed only against three accused persons namely (i) Jotiyo alias Bhagvan Gafur Koli (ii) Bhura Nagar alias Gaju alias Ramesh Vaghri and (iii) Dilu ...
Tag this Judgment!Chief Officer Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR675]; (2008)IIILLJ206Guj
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Jirga D. Jhaveri for the petitioner Nagarpalika and learned advocate Mr.A.K. Clerk for respondents workmen.2. In all these petitions, the petitioner - Bilimora Nagarpalika has challenged the order passed by the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act'). The respondents workmen in each petition approached the controlling authority claiming the amount of gratuity under the Act and in those applications, the controlling authority has decided that workmen are entitled to amount of gratuity according the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the controlling authority has calculated the amount and directed the petitioner Nagarpalika to pay the amount of gratuity to the concerned employees with 12% interest within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of order from the controlling authority.3. Learned advocate Ms. Jhaveri appearing on behalf of petitioner Nagarpalika submitted that Section 2(e) of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Amrutbhai G. Desai Vs. the State of Gujarat and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR67]; (2008)3GLR1890
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. The present petitions are filed in the background that an advertisement was issued by the respondents on 13.9.2002 for making recruitment on various posts. The petitioners applied for that. Prior to applying to these posts, one of the petitioners was employed in B.S.F. His case is that looking to the service conditions which were offered in the advertisement at Annexure-A to the petition, he thought prudent to shift his employment if possible from B.S.F. to the respondents' employment and appeared at necessary examination and completed formalities which were required to be undertaken pursuant to the advertisement. After that, the select list was published in which the names of the petitioners were included. Consequent to the selection of the present petitioners, appointment orders were also issued and petitioners joined the services and continued to enjoy fruits of employment offered by the respondents. 2. After about one year, there came an order passed by the re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »