Gujarat Court June 2011 Judgments
Prabhatbhai Dalabhai Desai Vs. Bharat Textile Works
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-2011
1. The Board has been revised. No one appears for the appellant to press this Appeal. 2. In this Appeal, order of learned Single Judge dated 20.7.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No.9858 of 2003 has been challenged. In the writ petition, the appellant had challenged award dated 8.8.2002 passed by Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.134 of 1988, wherein the respondent was directed to grant reinstatement with 40% back wages. 3. The brief facts are that the appellant was appointed as Temporary Watchman on probation, initially for a period of 6 months on 22.1.1987. On 7.9.1987, the appellant submitted his resignation and it was accepted. The appellant was also communicated about the acceptance of his resignation by letter dated 9.9.1987 sent by Registered A.D. Post. 4. After five years of termination of the services, the appellant challenged his termination dated 7.9.1987, which found favour with the Labour Court and the Labour Court allowed the reference, directing reins...
Tag this Judgment!M. R. Mittal Vs. Union of India - Through Secretary and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-2011
1. We have heard Mr M.S. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. In this petition order dated 30.11.2010 passed in O.A. No.303 of 2009 with M.A. No.90 of 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad for short, "the Tribunal") has been challenged by which the OA has been rejected by the Tribunal. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that once the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the O.A. was not maintainable, it was not required to dismiss the O.A. on merits. On a question put by us to Mr Trivedi whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction or not, he answered in affirmative that the Tribunal had jurisdiction. Therefore, we have proceeded to examine the matter on merits and we have heard Mr Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner on merits of the petition. 3. The facts of the case has been given in detail by the Tribunal by order dated 24.5.1993 and we need not go into those facts. The petitioner was awarded penalty of reducti...
Tag this Judgment!United Phosphorous Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-2011
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 30.3.2001 issued by the respondent under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) reopening the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1995-96. 2. The petitioner, a limited company, filed its return of income for assessment year 1995-96 on 29.11.1995 declaring total income of Rs.3,84,97,110/-. Subsequently, assessment came to be framed under section 143(3) of the Act at an income of Rs.16,21,60,213/- on 30.3.1998. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Surat who vide order dated 28.10.1999 partly allowed the appeal. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was carried further in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) both by the petitioner as well as the Income Tax Department which were pending at the time of filing the present petition. Thereafter, by the impugned notice da...
Tag this Judgment!Ketankumar Hirabhai Dafda Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-15-2011
ORDER :1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with the following prayers: “A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the present res.Nos.2 and 3 to permit the present petitioner to resume his duty as Panchayat Sahayak as per appointment order and further be pleased to direct the present res.no.2 to make the fresh inquiry as per his order dtd.25/05/2010 other then the officer (Dy,.D.D.O) who has passed an order dtd.23/9/2008 as per the request made by the petitioner by letter dtd.5/10/2010; B) Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to direct the res.nos.2 and 3 to permit the petitioner to resume duty for the post of Panchayat Sahayak as res.no.2 has already quashed and set aside the order of dismissal dtd. 23/9/2008 passed by the present res.no.3; C) Be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s which may ...
Tag this Judgment!Dipika Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-15-2011
1. Heard learned advocates for the parties. The petitioner who has been named as accused no.2 in C.R. No. II-191/2007 dated 13/7/2007 registered with Bhavnagar 'B' Division Police Station for the offences punishable under section 498-A, 323, 504 read with section 114 of Indian Penal Code has approached this Court under section 482 of Cri. Procedure Code for quashment of the same- qua the present petitioner only. 2. The complainant has alleged in the complaint that petitioner happened to be her husband's girl friend and on account of their illicit relationship he was harassing and torturing the complainant informant. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the complainant has not disclosed any offence for which she could be subjected to undergo the rigors of criminal proceeding. 3. None is present for respondent no.2, the wife – original informant. Learned APP submitted that trial is going on and criminal proceeding being Criminal Case No. 3808/2007 is actually at the s...
Tag this Judgment!Keshodwala Foods Vs. General Manager-paschim Gujarat Vij Co Ltd and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-15-2011
1. As common questions of facts and law are involved in both the above referred Special Civil Applications, they are disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The Petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 8373 of 2006 has prayed for the following reliefs: “7.(a) Admit this Special Civil Applications (b) Allow this Special Civil Application by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned communication at Annexure-A as the same is unjust, improper, illegal and Unconstitutional and in clear violation of principles of fairness, equity and accordingly the same may be quashed and set aside. 7(B)(1) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application by issuing appropriate writ order or direction to the respondent for adjustment of additional amount charged by respondent on account of not accepting prayer of the petitioner for extension of load at the first instance in the facts and circumstances of the present c...
Tag this Judgment!Liliben and ors. Vs. Ramilaben
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-15-2011
1. The appellants have preferred this Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the judgment and order dated 23rd August 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.11627/2008, whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the petition. 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this Appeal can be summarised as under:- 3. Appellants are the original petitioners (original plaintiffs) of Regular Civil Suit No.184/2003 filed in the Court of 10th Civil Judge (S.D.), Surat. The suit has been preferred for declaration and permanent injunction. 4. In the said Suit, the appellants preferred application Exh.41 for amendment of the plaint, by which a declaration was sought from the Civil Court to quash and set-aside the sale deed dated 21st July 1993 and further declaration to treat the said sale deed as null and void being illegal. 5. It appears that the said application Exh.41 was partly allowed by the learned Civil Judge. While pa...
Tag this Judgment!Employees Provident Fund Organization Vs. Rollwell Forge Ltd and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-15-2011
1. The present Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the Employees Provident Fund Organization through Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Rajkot, challenging the judgment and order dated 1.5.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the learned Single Judge disposed of the petition issuing certain directions to the Appellant (Original Respondent) in the writ petition. 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the Appeal can be summarized as under. 3. Vide order dated 30.1.2001 passed under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the Appellant quantified Respondents liability towards unpaid provident fund contribution for the period from April, 2001 to January, 2007. By the said order the Appellant determined that the total unpaid provident fund contribution came to Rs.37,13,808/-. A separate order under Section 7(Q) of the Act came to be pas...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Vs. Mahendra ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-15-2011
1. The present Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the Employees Provident Fund Organization through Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Rajkot, challenging the judgment and order dated 18.2.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the learned Single Judge disposed of the petition issuing certain directions to the Appellant (Original Respondent) in the writ petition. 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the Appeal can be summarized as under. 3. Vide order dated 20.10.2010 passed under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the Appellant quantified Respondent's liability towards unpaid provident fund contribution. By the said order the Appellant determined that the total unpaid provident fund contribution came to Rs.22,26,908/-. 4. The Respondent – Original Petitioner challenged the order dated 20.10.2010 passed by the Assistant...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaniben Mahadevbhai Patel and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-13-2011
1. Cri.Misc.Appln.No.1345 of 2011 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners-original accused for quashing of FIR registered as C.R.No.I-2 of 2011 at Bhabhar Police Station, Dist. Banaskantha. Spl. Cri.Appln.No.149 of 2011 has been taken out by the complainant of said complaint for handing over investigation of said Crime Register Number to CBI and/or CID, Crime and/or Dy.S.P. of S.T. and S.C. Cell. 2. As both the petitions arise out of the same facts and parties thereto are also the same, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 3. The complaint in question was lodged by the complainant-Jivabhai Vahajibhai against the petitioners-accused which was registered as C.R.No.I-2 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Secs.323, 504, 506(2), 143 and 114 of IPC and under Sec.3(1)(10) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at Bhabhar Police Station. 4. Heard learned advocate, Mr.Vi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »