Gujarat Court September 2013 Judgments
State Bank of India Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Othe ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
1. Heard learned advocates. 2. The State Bank of India has moved this Court by this petition, challenging the action of the authorities of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat declaring the Manager of the State Bank of India, Fort Songadh Branch, District: Tapi (Surat) as a deemed defaulter vide order dated 24.08.2012 and also notice dated 24.08.2012 as to why a warrant of arrest be not issued against the Manager of the State Bank of India. 3. This Court (Coram: Honourable Smt. Justice Abhilasha Kumari), vide order dated 05.09.2012, granted ad-interim relief in favour of the State Bank of India by staying the implementation and operation of the above referred order and notice dated 24.08.2012. The said adinterim protection continued from time to time and was confirmed vide order of this Court (Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice K.S.Jhaveri) dated 28.12.2012. 4. Serious grievance is made on behalf of the State Bank of India through learned advocate Ms. Rawal that, inspite of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Samir Diamond Manufacturing Private Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-24-2013
1. Heard Mr. H.K.Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner Company and Mr. Joy Mathew, learnedadvocate for the respondent authorities. 2. Challenge in this petition is made to the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Surat, dated 20.03.2012, in exercise of powers under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The said order is, inter alia, based on a report of the Enforcement Officer, which was on record. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner company has submitted that apart from the fact that on merits, no payment is required to be made, even the report of the Enforcement Officer, which was the base for passing the impugned order, was also not supplied to the petitioner. It is further contended that even this was specifically agitated by filing Review before the appropriate forum, and while rejecting the Review, under Section 7B of the Act, vide order dated 28.01.2013, even this aspect is not taken into...
Tag this Judgment!Kantaben Jayantilal Radadia Vs. Paschim Gujarat Vij. Co. Ltd and Anoth ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
Oral Judgment 1. Both these petitions have been filed by the petitioners for the prayers that the impugned actions of the respondents of disconnecting the power supply to the petitioner on the basis of notice dated 23.07.2010 may be set aside on the grounds stated in the petition. 2. The petitioner of Special Civil Application No.11400/2010 is the wife of defaulter, Jayantibhai and the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.11197/2010 is the grandson of the defaulter, Jayantibhai. The impugned notice dated 23.07.2010 came to be issued to clear the dues of Vishnukrupa Quarry Works and its partners including Jayantibhai Radadia. 3. Heard learned counsel, Shri P.J. Kanabar for the petitioners and learned counsel, Shri Dipak Dave for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel, Shri Kanabar has referred to the papers and submitted that the premises for which the default has been committed are different. It was submitted that consumer connection no.94101/00024/7 is for lighting and consumer conn...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Faze Three Limited Vs. Employees Provident Fund Organisation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Deepak R.Dave learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.B.T.Rao, learned advocate for the respondent Authorities. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings initiated against him by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Vapi (Surat), under Section-7A of the ployees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Serious grievance is made by the learned advocate for the petitioner about the manner and method in which the proceedings are being undertaken by the respondent Authorities. Further, number of prayers are made in this petition. 3. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on ecord, this Court finds that the ends of justice would meet if the present etition is considered only to the limited extent as to whether the petitioner company is given reasonable opportunity of putting its case before the Authorities or not. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has d...
Tag this Judgment!Makhmalsinh Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Against the judgment and order rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Mehsana in Sessions Case No.62 of 2004 dated 30.10.2004 whereby, the appellant, original accused, has been convicted for the offence u/s.302 of Indian Penal Code (for short, œthe IPC?) and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act (for short, œthe BP Act?), this appeal has been preferred. For conviction u/s.302 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/and in default, imprisonment for a further period of one year and for conviction u/s.135 BP Act, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.100/and in case of default, simple imprisonment for a further period of seven days. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.12.2003 at around 0830 hrs., the complainant, Rajnikanth @ Rasikbhai Virambhai Patel, left by foot for the busstand for going to Unjha. While he was waiting...
Tag this Judgment!Khant Dhanjibhai Ghusabhai Sarvaiya Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-13-2013
Oral Judgment: K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Present appeal is preferred by the original accused against the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.01.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Gondal in Sessions Case No. 89 of 1994 for the offences punishable under sections 302 of Indian Penal Code. The original accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and was ordered to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution is based upon a complaint given by the complainant “ father of deceased Jayaben wherein it is stated that on 17.12.1993, the present appellant poured kerosene on Jayaben and set her ablaze with the help of a matchstick. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant used to frequently quarrel with the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was meted out with physical a...
Tag this Judgment!Neha Bina Ramani Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-13-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1908 and Guardians and Wards Act, 1980, on the grounds stated in the petition for the following prayers: œ10.(A) the Honble Court may be pleased to admit this petition; (B) the Honble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by the respondent no.2, dated 30.11.2011; (C) the Honble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to publish the name of the petitioner as œNeha Bina Ramani? in place of œNeha Manohar Tahilramani?; (D) the Honble Court may be pleased to grant any other or further relief looking to the facts and circumstances of the present petition;? 2. Heard learned Advocate Shri K.B. Paneri for the petitioner and learned AGP Shri Bipin Bhatt for Respondent No.1 and 2. 3. The factual background has stated are that the parents of the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Sivram Shripat Gambhir Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-11-2013
Oral Judgment 1. Here is a case where absence of the petitioner on account of his insanity/mental retardation/mental illness made him to suffer an order of compulsory retirement on the charge of unauthorised absence from duty. 2. The petitioner who put in about 31 years of service came to be served with a chargesheet dated 06.09.2002, alleging absenteeism from duty after 11.01.2000 and departmental inquiry was initiated against him. However, the petitioner did not attend the departmental inquiry and the departmental inquiry was concluded in his absence. Based on the inquiry report, the petitioner was served with second show cause notice, to which, the petitioner did not respond and ultimately the disciplinary authority the respondent No.4, passed order dated 13.01.2004 under Rule 3 of the Bombay Police (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1956, of compulsory retirement against the petitioner. In the said order, the period from 11.01.2000 till the date of the order, is considered as leave wit...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjaykumar Thakorbhai Naik Vs. Navsari Oil Products Pvt. Ltd. Co. and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-05-2013
1. Challenge in present Appeal preferred under Order 43, Rule 1(r) read with Section 104 of the Civil Procedure Code (For short œCPC?), is the order dated 29.4.2013 passed in Special Civil Suit No.73 of 2012 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Navsari, wherein pending hearing of the suit for the specific performance based upon agreement dated 6.8.2012 in favour of the plaintiff “ appellant in respect of the land property admeasuring 22157 HRASq. Mtr. situated at Survey No.239/1 and Survey No.239/2 in the area of village : Vijalpore, Tal. Jalalpore, Dist. Navsari (now, it would be referred to as œsuit property?), prayed to restrain the respondents from transferring, assigning, leasing, mortgaging or transferring in any manner and further to prevent from making any construction or to change the identity of the suit property till final disposal of the suit. Parties to the present proceedings would be referred to as per their status before the trial Court....
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Popatbhai Bhalabhai Alias Bharabhai Bharwad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-04-2013
Oral Judgment: K.S. Jhaveri, J. By way of the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant has challenged the judgement and order of acquittal dated 9.11.1992 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, in Sessions Case No. 28 of 1991 whereby the respondents-original accused were acquitted of the charges under Sections 366, 376(2)(J), 323, 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 28.6.1990 at about 10.30 p.m. the complainant victim while going to Jamalpur by autorickshaw, the respondents-original accused intercepted the autorickshaw. They assaulted the rickshaw driver and he ran away from the place. Thereafter, the accused took the complainant victim to lonely place with an intention to commit rape on her. The complainant resisted the accused and ultimately she resigned to them. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 committed rape on her whereas accused No. 3 abetted in the said o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »