Gujarat Court March 2012 Judgments

Sunil Vidhyasagar Gat and Another Vs. Shalini Verma Officer of Dy. Dir ...

Court: Gujarat

1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-petitioners, two brothers, have prayed for issue of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for the purpose of quashing and setting aside the impugned warrant of authorization dated February 16, 2011 issued by the respondent No.1 under section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and have also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to handover the custody of the seized silver articles to the petitioners. 2. The case made out by the writ-petitioners in the writ-application may be summed up thus:-1. The petitioners are residents of village Hupari, Taluka Hathagande, Dist. Kolhapur, Maharashtra State and are assessed to Income Tax by the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1, Kchalkaranji, Dist. Kolhapur, in the State of Maharashtra.2. The petitioners reside in a joint-family with their parents and are silver artisans and manufacturing silver articles and doing business separately. They are assessed to Income ...

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Kanaiyalal Shitaldas Kahar and Anot ...

Court: Gujarat

ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appellant, original opponent no.2, has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and award dated 13.06.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara in M.A.C.P. No.163/1993 whereby, the claim petition was allowed in part and the appellant, along with original opponent no.1, was jointly and severally held liable to make payment of compensation to respondent no.1, original claimant. 2. The aforesaid claim petition was filed in connection with the vehicular accident that took place on 08.12.1992 involving a Scooter bearing registration No. GJ-6-H-449. 3. The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the impugned award mainly on the aspect of quantum. It has been submitted that the Tribunal has seriously erred in assessing the income of claimant at Rs.4,100/- and the prospective income at Rs.6,150/-. It has also been submitted that the claimant was 45 years of age at the time of accident and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have adopte...

Yakub Mohammed Mukardamwala Vs. K.S. Sashkumar and Others

Court: Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Ahmedabad

S.A. Makhija, Member. 1. This complaint is filed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity). 2. The short facts of the complainant's case are that the complainant had invested about Rs.75,00,000 in Suphala Plantations of the opponents who have their registered office at XL iv/62, Aroma Cottage, SRM Road, Cochin-7682018. The details of investment in Mangium Land Scheme, are given in the complaint. This scheme was in regard to purchase of a unit in immovable property for plantation situated in village Kuppanapur, Taluk Kovilpatti, Dist. Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu. The notices have been issued on the opponents but most of them have not been served. 3. In this case the Mangium shares units in the immovable property are issued from Cochin where the opponents have their registered office. The opponent company does not have any branch in Gujarat. The units relate to immovable property situated in the State of Tamil Nadu, T...

Sultej Industries Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank

Court: Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Ahmedabad

S.A. Makhija, Member: 1. This complaint is filed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity.) 2. The short facts of the complainants case are that the complainant is a registered company and had opened a Current Account with the opponent bank. The company had been taking the services of the bank for its commercial purpose. On 9.10.2003 the company detected the fraud committed by one Rajesh Tripathi in collusion with the opponent bank. In para 20 of the complaint the complainant has specifically stated in so many words that the cause of action had arisen on 21.10.2003 when the company came to know about the fraud. 3. First and main question arising in this case is as to whether the complaint is a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act in view of the Amendment Act 62 of 2002 which came into force with effect from 15.3.2003. An answer to this question can be had in the case of Economic Transport O...

Giriraj Proteins Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.

Court: Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Ahmedabad

S.A. Makhija, Member: 1. The appellant Shri Giriraj Proteins are original complainant and the respondent National Insurance Co. Ltd., are the original opponent and they are referred to as such in their original nomenclature for the sake of convenience. 2. The short facts of the case are that the complainant was running a flour mill in Shriram Builders Compound at Chakalia Road in village Dahod. District Dahod. It was using plastic and gunny bags for packing its product. All the packed and ready material was kept in storage place in the premises of the complainant. The complainant had insured the machinery, goods, stocks, packing material, etc., and the said policy was issued by the opponent company for insuring the risk of Rs. 62 lacs. On 6.5.2003 in the mid-night fire had taken place at the insured premises. The complainant informed the opponent Insurance Company, completed all formalities and submitted the insurance claim. Surveyor was appointed by the opponent who assessed the loss ...

Ratan Food Products and Others Vs. Jasvindersing Harcharansing Madan

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: 2012(2)CTC(IP)20

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.M. SAHAI) We have heard Mr. Sachin Vasavada, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. A. J. Yagnik, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The appellant – original defendant filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 (though it ought to have been under Order X) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad had no jurisdiction to entertain composite civil suit being Civil Suit No.79 of 2010 under the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Trade Marks Act, 1999. 3. The City Civil Court rejected the application filed by the appellant by order dated 24.2.2010 and held that composite suit was maintainable. The City Civil Court framed the question as to whether the composite suit for infringement of copyright and passing off action was maintainable before it or not The City Civil Court held that the composite suit was maintainable with...

Mukeshbhai @ Mafabhai S/O Prabhudasbhai Darji Vs. State of Gujarat Thr ...

Court: Gujarat

ORAL JUDGMENT The petitioner has been detained under the provisions of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1985') by the order dated 19.11.2011 passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City, and he has been declared as bootlegger. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the State. Also perused the record. From the grounds of detention, it appears that one offence being Vastrapur Police Station Prohibition C.R.No.5053 of 2011 under the Prohibition Act have been registered against the detenu, wherein it is alleged that a total quantity of 76 bottles of foreign liquor was found from the possession of the detenu. On the basis of registration of this case, the detaining authority held that the present detenu was carrying on activities of selling country made liquor which is harmful to the health of the public. It is held by the detaining authority that as the detenu is indulged in illegal activities, it...

Divisional Controller Gujarat State Road Transport Vs. Ahmedabad Divis ...

Court: Gujarat

Heard Mrs. Mandavia, learned advocate for the petitioner. 2. The petition is directed against the award dated 20.7.2011 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference (IT) No.145 of 2008 whereby the learned Tribunal has set aside the order dated 4.1.2008 passed by the petitioner - Corporation imposing punishment of stoppage of 5 increments with permanent effect. 2.1 The Tribunal has, by the award impugned in present petition, set aside the order dated 4.1.2008, however, the tribunal has also declined to grant direction of payment of the monetary loss caused to the respondent – workman from 4.1.2008 until the date of award i.e. 20.7.2011, which occurred on account of the fact that the order dated 4.1.2008 remained in operation until the date of award. The tribunal has directed the petitioner - corporation to fix the salary of the respondent – workman by considering the payment of salary from 4.1.2008 to 20.7.2011 as notional pay and to start regular payment of his...

Kadarbhai M Mukhi and Another Vs. Rasidaben Ajijbhai and Another

Court: Gujarat

ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appellants herein have challenged the award dated 01.01.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 239 of 1996 so far as the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,60,000/- by way of compensation to the original claimants along with 15% interest.2. It is the case of the appellants that while Shri Ajijbhai Dhanani was riding a bicycle, a tanker driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner hit the bicycle from behind as a result of which the deceased was thrown off the bicycle and sustained serious injuries. He succumbed to those injuries. The claimants being legal heirs and representatives of the deceased therefore filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award. 3. Mr. Vyas, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Ajay Mehta for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in quantifying the award at Rs. 2,60,00...

Jasdan Municipality Through Chief Officer Vs. Kantibhai Bachubhai Thum ...

Court: Gujarat

1. The Petitioner-Municipality has brought under challenge award dated 2.9.2011 passed by labour Court Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No.187 of 2002 whereby the labour Court has directed the Petitioner-Municipality to reinstate the Respondent-Workman on his original post. The Labour Court has, however, declined to award any backwages. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the said direction to reinstate the Respondent. Hence present Petition. The facts emerging from the record are that the Respondent-Workman raised industrial dispute on the ground that though he was in continuous service of the Petitioner-Municipality since May 2000, his service was illegally and arbitrarily terminated with effect from 1.3.2002 without following any procedure and without complying any requirement. The said dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. During the proceedings before the Labour Court the Respondent-Workman filed his statement of claim claiming and alleging that he was engaged by the Peti...