Gujarat Court July 2009 Judgments
Vankanerda Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali Ltd. Vs. Election Officer and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-31-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR2474
Mohit S. Shah, J.1. Rule. Mrs. V.S. Pathak, learned A.G.P. for respondent No. 1 and Mr. B.S. Patel for respondent No. 2 waive service of rule.2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner Cooperative Society has challenged the order dated 23-7-2009 (Annexure-H) passed by the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar who is also the Election Officer for elections to the Board of Directors of Gandhinagar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. respondent No. 2 herein. In the said communication, the Election Officer held that the application made by the petitioner-Society nominating Pravinsinh Shakaraji Thakore as its delegate could not be accepted because the same was made after publication of the final voters' list on 25-6-2009 and after declaration of the election program on 20-7-2009.3. Mr. Prakash K. Jani, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out at the preliminary hearing on 28-7-2009 that earlier the petitioner-Society had sent the name of Prahaladji Prat...
Tag this Judgment!Shivpura Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali Ltd. and anr. Vs. Collector and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR1840
Mohit S. Shah, J.1. Rule. Mrs. V.S. Pathak, learned A.G.P. waives service of rule for the respondent.2. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, four Milk Producing Co-operative Societies - petitioner No. 1 in each of these four petitions have challenged separate but identical orders of the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar who is also the Election Officer for elections to the Board of Directors of the Gandhinagar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (popularly known as Gandhinagar dairy) which is a specified society under the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The elections are governed by the Gujarat Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Election Rules').3. When the respondent had invited names of nominees of the Milk Producers Co-operative Societies in the District, each of the petitioner societies had sent the names of its respective C...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Reliance Petroleum Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-29-2009
Reported in: [2010]154CompCas286(Guj)
Jayant Patel, J.1. The present petition is preferred by the petitioning transferor company-M/s. Reliance Petroleum Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'RPL' for the sake of convenience), seeking sanction to the scheme of amalgamation with the transferee company-M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'RIL' for the sake of convenience).2. It appears that after the scheme was accepted by the board of directors of the petitioning company, an application was moved to this Court for convening the meetings of the shareholders of the company. This Court (Coram : K. M. Thaker J.), vide order dated March 5, 2009, in Company Application No. 65 of 2009 had directed for convening of the meetings of the shareholders, secured creditors (class 1), secured creditors (class 2) and all unsecured creditors. The meetings, pursuant thereto, have been held and the chairman of the meetings has filed the report. As per the said report of the chairman, following position has emerged at the meeti...
Tag this Judgment!Yogeshkumar Becharbhai Upadhyay Vs. State Election Commission and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-29-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Guj168; (2009)3GLR2519
Mohit S. Shah, J.1. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24th July, 2009 of Collector, Anand holding that the petitioner having already been disqualified under the Gujarat Provision for Disqualification of Members of Local Authorities for Defection Act, 1986 [hereinafter referred to as the Anti-Defection Act], has ceased to hold office as Councillor of Khambhat Municipality, more particularly, upon dismissal of the petition by the learned single Judge on 2nd April, 2009 and dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal on 24th July, 2009.2. The petitioner was a Councillor in Khambhat Municipality against whom the order dated 27th March, 2009 was passed by the designated authority under the Anti-Defection Act. The writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the learned single Judge on 2nd April, 2009 and the Letters Patent Appeal came to be dismissed on 24th July, 2009.The meeting of the Khambhat Municipality i...
Tag this Judgment!Essar Oil Limited and ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-29-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ224
ORDERH.N. Devani, J.1. Rule. Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned Central Government Standing Counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 1 Central Bureau of Investigation and Mr. D.C. Sejpal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the 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 final hearing.3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the petitioners seek the following substantive reliefs:[A] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 22.09.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Court No. 3, at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.63 of 2008 in so far as it states as follows:It is however clarified th...
Tag this Judgment!Pravinkumar Paraskumar Gokhroo Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-27-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ477
D.H. Waghela, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for suspension of his conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pursuant to admission of his appeal and the sentence also having been suspended by order dated 12.02.2009. The petitioner has averred, inter alia, that he has a strong case in appeal as the prosecution is based merely on deposition Of one panch-witness, who also had admitted that the applicant had not made any demand for bribe; that panchas were specifically selected by the C.B.I. and brought all the way from Gandhinagar to Bhavnagar for trapping him, rather than selecting local panch witnesses; that the applicant had taken major initiative resulting into recovery of Rs. 40 crores from ship breaking companies; and advocate Shri A. D. Maru, who was appearing for the ship breaking companies before CEGAT, had practically arranged, the trap with an obvious ulterior motive. It is also stated that ACRs of the applicant would show an excellent track r...
Tag this Judgment!Central Bank of India Vs. Parkar Securities Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-27-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR1836
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. Central Bank of India has come up with these Letters Patent Appeals against interim order passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 2791 of 2009 on 9-4-2009 and against the order passed in Civil Application No. 4137 of 2009 staying the proceedings in O.A. No. 177 of 2003 pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short 'D.R.T.'). Special Civil Application No. 2791 of 2009 was preferred by the respondents herein for staying further proceedings in O.A. No. 177 of 2003 pending before the D.R.T. till final disposal of the Summary Civil Suit No. 3233 of 2002 pending before the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad and also for other consequential reliefs. When these Letters Patent Appeals came up for hearing, on consent of the parties, we called for Special Civil Application No. 2791 of 2009 as well for final disposal.2. Central Bank of India (for short 'Bank') granted credit facility by way of Bank Guarantee limit of Rs. 25 lakhs ...
Tag this Judgment!Suryakant Chimanlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-24-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR1842
R.M. Doshit, J.1. With the consent of the learned Advocates, the appeal is heard and finally decided today.2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16th March, 2009 passed by the learned single Judge, the appellant-writ petitioner has preferred the present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.3. The appellant joined the service of the Government of Gujarat in Class-Ill service as Laboratory Technician under the respondent No. 3-Commissioner of Health, Medical Services and Medical Education. After serving for more than 30 years; while he was posted as Senior Scientific Assistant (Class-II) at Dahod, on 6th September, 2005, he submitted application for voluntary retirement effective from 31st December, 2005. It appears that after 31st December, 2005, at the request of the superior officer, the appellant continued to serve as Biologist till 30th November, 2006. The absence of the appellant since 1st December, 2006 was treated as absence from duty without pay. In view o...
Tag this Judgment!Twenty First Century Wire Rods Ltd. Vs. Punjab Steel Rolling Mills Pvt ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-24-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Guj147
ORDERM.R. Shah, J.1. The present Appeal from Order has been preferred by the appellant herein original applicant defendant under Order XLIII, Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the order Hated 20th June, 2009 passed by learned 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below Exh-1 dismissing Misc. Civil Application No. 116 of 2008 filed by the appellant herein inter alia praying to condone the delay that has been caused in preferring an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. The appellant herein-original applicant-defendant had preferred the application under Order IX, Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure inter alia praying to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 30th October, 2004 passed by learned 8th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara. There was a delay in preferring the application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, the appellant herein preferred Misc. Civil Application No. 116 of 2008 to...
Tag this Judgment!Jaswantsinh @ Kali S/O Sardar Ramsingh Indrasingh Vs. Indravadan Chhag ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-23-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR2513
Abhilasha Kumari, J.Rule. Mr. Jignesh H. Kapadia, for Mr. Harin P. Raval, learned Counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. Though served, none appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 22-10-2008, passed by the trial Court in application at Exh. 45, in Civil Suit No. 215 of 2006, whereby the above-mentioned application of the petitioner for permission to file a written statement, has been dismissed.2. The brief facts of the case, as emerging from the material on record are that the petitioner is the original defendant No. 3 in the above-mentioned civil suit which has been filed by respondent No. 1-(Original Plaintiff). The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the original defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who are being proceeded ex parte, in the civil suit. The suit was filed on 20th December, 1999. Upon issuance of summons, defendant No. 3 entered appearance on 4-2-2000.2.1. It appears that, at the behest of defend...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »