Gujarat Court April 2009 Judgments
Parshuram Tiles Company Ltd. Vs. Kanjibhai Somabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-29-2009
Reported in: (2010)ILLJ366Guj
K.M. Thaker, J.1. Heard Mr. K.M. Patel, learned senior advocate with Mr. V.K. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. V.D. Parghi, learned advocate for the respondents.2. Considering the contentions raised in the petitions and submissions made by the counsel of both the sides, Rule.3. In view of the fact that the subject matter of present petitions relates to the retiral benefits of the workmen of a company which has stopped functioning since 1993 and in view of the joint request by the advocates of the contesting parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent and request of the learned advocates for both the sides, the petitions are taken up for final hearing and decision today. Learned advocate Mr. Parghi waives service of notice of rule for the respondents.4. In the present petition, a limited company whose operations and activities have been closed down since December 1993 has, brought under challenge order dated December 31, 2008 passed by appellate author...
Tag this Judgment!Unitop Engineering (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-29-2009
Reported in: (2010)ILLJ187Guj
K.M. Thaker, J.1. Heard Mr. Patel learned senior counsel with Mr. J.M. Patel learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Mehta learned advocate for the respondent. Rule. Mr. Mehta learned advocate for the respondent waives service of notice of Rule. With the consent of learned advocates of both sides the petition is taken up for final hearing and decision today.2. In this petition the petitioner has challenged order dated December 12, 2008 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the (Tribunal) dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground that the same, when filed, was time barred. The petitioner has also challenged order dated December 2, 2005 passed by the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, imposing damages under Section 14(B) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and also the order dated December 2, 2005 passed by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Vadodara unde...
Tag this Judgment!Khalid A. Hakim Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Authority Under ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-27-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR2065
K.M. Thaker, J.1. Heard Mrs. Parikh, learned Advocate for petitioner, Mr. N. J. Shah, learned A.G.P., for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. D. S. Vasavada, learned Advocate for respondent No. 3. Rule. Mr. Vasavada, Mr. Desai and Mr. Shah have waived service of notice of Rule. At the request and with the consent of all parties the petition is taken up for final hearing.1.1. The petitioner has preferred present petition seeking below mentioned reliefs:(9/A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and or any other appropriate writ, order of direction in the like nature quashing and setting aside the Notice dated 13-9-2007 issued by the respondent A.L.C. and authority under Payment of Wages Act, Mahabubnagar (State-Andhra Pradesh) in P.W. Application No. 8 of 2007 (Annexure-A) and show-cause notice No. E/824/2006 dated 10-8-2006 issued to the petitioner by the A.L.C. Mahabubnagar (State-A.P.) under the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (R.E.C.) Act, (Annexure-B).(9/B) Your Lordship...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Ganesh Singh Deepnarayan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Guj98; (2009)3GLR1934
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. Petitioner has challenged constitutional validity of the Second Proviso to Section 18 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter called 'Securitisation Act'), on, the ground that it is violative of Article 14; of the Constitution of India.2. Learned Counsel Mr. K.I. Shah, appearing for the petitioner' submitted that proviso which insists pre-deposit of any amount for entertaining an appeal is not in consonance with the object and purpose of the Act, which makes remedy of appeal illusory. Learned Counsel submitted that such a stipulation is oppressive and onerous. Counsel further submitted that secured assets or its management with transferable interest has already been taken over by the secured creditor and it is under its control and therefore, there is no reason to insist for payment of any amount as a condition precedent for filing appeal. Learned Counsel further submitted that secur...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadevbhai Dhanabhai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1811
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Both these petitions have been heard together as they challenge the same order made by the revisional authority in Revision Application No. 1 of 1990 dated 24-4-1990 in the backdrop of following facts.2. The petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 740 of 1991 are respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Special Civil Application No. 8846 of 1990. Hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, they shall be referred to as the original land owners. The petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 8846 of 1990 are purchasers and shall hereinafter be referred to as the purchasers. The original land owners held land bearing Old Survey Nos. 67/1, 67/2, 68 and 70/4, comprised of block No. 218. Out of that, land admeasuring 16 Acres-21 Gunthas came to be purchased vide registered sale-deed on 21-6-1983 by the purchasers. Entry No. 3075 dated 15-12-1987 came to be made in this regard and the said entry came to be certified on 21-1-1988 by Mamlatdar, Viramgam.3. Collector, Ahmedabad found tha...
Tag this Judgment!Baldevbhai @ Bachubhai Motibhai Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-21-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR2283
Jayant Patel, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, in Session Case No. 39 of 2001, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and the sentence has been imposed for life imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and imprisonment for 4 months with the fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.2. The facts of the case appears to be that as per the prosecution case, the appellant-accused himself declared before the police that his wife Madhu (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') had married since last 18 years and there are two children, son Nilesh aged 16 years and daughter Daksha aged 12 years. The deceased was doing labour work in the field of one Amarsinh Dalaji Darbar and some money was taken by the deceased for c...
Tag this Judgment!Sajal Sureshkumar JaIn Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-20-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ213
ORDER1. As in all the applications for bail pending the appeals, common questions arise for consideration as the appeals are also arising from the common Judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, they are being considered simultaneously by the present common order.2. Rule. Mr. Mengdey, learned APP and Mr. Dipen Desai, learned APP waive service of notice of Rule in all the concerned matters.3. The applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No. 12893 of 2008 is accused No. 4 (for the sake of convenience, he shall be described as 'A-4' hereinafter); the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No. 12897 of 2008 is accused No. 1 (for the sake of convenience, he shall be described as 'A-1' hereinafter); the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No. 13041 of 2008 is accused No. 2 (for the sake of convenience, he shall be described as 'A-2' hereinafter); the applicant of Criminal Misc. ApplicatiOH.Nod3039 of 2008 is accused No.3 (for the sake of convenience, he shall be described' as 'A...
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Dasa Vs. the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Guj130
ORDERM.R. Shah. J.1. Interesting and short question of law which is posed for consideration of this Court is as under:Whether Notification dated 23-9-2003 specifying the work of all types of pipelines of the State Government or as the case may be, of the Public Undertaking for the purpose of the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 would be applicable prospective or retrospectively i.e. even with respect to the contract/agreement entered into prior to 23-9-2003 or not?2. Present application has been preferred by the applicant/petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Act') to appoint sole arbitrator from the panel given in the letter dated 17-1 -2007 as per Annexure-L for the adjudication of disputes/difference, rights and claims which have arisen out of the contract and which are narrated in the notice dated 29-3-2005.3. Facts leading to the present application and so pleaded...
Tag this Judgment!Marwah Company Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, National thermal Po ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Guj137
ORDERM.R. Shah, J.1. Present application has been preferred by the petitioner original applicant to substitute/appoint another Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties with respect to LOA No. 157 dated 10-6-1994 for construction of 300 CUM capacity overhead water tank for JGGPP.2. The petitioner-Contractor was awarded works contract being LOA No. 157 dated 10-6-1994 for construction of 300 CUM capacity overhead water tank for Jhanor Gandhar Gas Power Project, Jhanor, District-Bharuch. It was the case on behalf of the petitioner that though the petitioner completed the work without any complaint from the respondents, the final bill was not paid to the petitioner. Therefore dispute arose between the parties and vide communication dated 12-6-1998 the petitioner demanded outstanding amount from the respondents and also requested them to appoint an arbitrator under clause 56 of the General Conditions of Contract for Civil Works. As per the petitioner, in spite of receipt of the...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Fatmaben Jamalbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1450
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Hina Desai for appellant-Insurance Company.2. This appeal is filed by Insurance Company under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act challenging judgment and order passed by W.C. Commissioner, Bhavnagar in W.C. (Fatal) Case No. 10 of 1999 Exh. 20 dated 11th February, 2005 wherein W.C. Commissioner has partly allowed W. C. (Fatal) Application and directed opponents Nos. 1 and 2 that they should jointly and severally deposit an amount of compensation of Rs. 75,940-00 within 30 days from the date of receipt of said judgment for making payment thereof to dependents of deceased. No order as to costs was passed by W. C. Commissioner. Commissioner has also not granted any amount of penalty as well as interest on the amount of compensation considering the fact that after death of deceased in accident on 11-3-1996, Claim Petition No. 315 of 1996 was filed initially by claimants and after passing of judgment therein on 17-12-1998, claimants filed appl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »