Gujarat Court January 2014 Judgments
Reliance Industries Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Oral Judgment 1. The petitioner company has preferred this petition seeking relief to issue appropriate writ for direction to the respondent authority to refund the amount of Rs.1,87,50,000/together with the interest accrued thereon on the date of payment till realization. 2. The short facts of the case are that the General Board of the shareholders of the petitioner company, vide resolutions dated 27th September, 2001 and 30th January, 2002, had decided to issue nonconvertible and noncumulative, unsecured, taxable, redeemable bonds of œS? Series of the face value of Rs.10 lac each, aggregating to Rs.125 crore and of the same type of bonds of œT? Series aggregating to Rs.125 crore, save and except that there was change in the interest for œS? Series at 9.90% p.a., whereas in œT? Series, it was 9.60% p.a. Based on the resolutions of the shareholders, the Board of Directors also accordingly resolved. Ultimately, vide Resolution dated 25.6.2002, copy whereof is pro...
Tag this Judgment!Registrar Births-death Department Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Oral Judgment K.J. Thaker 1. The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 18.3.2013, passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 1017 of 2013, whereby, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition and has directed that the name of the son of the petitioner be reflected as 'Om Hina Trivedi? instead of œOm Nareshbhai Jani'. Since in this appeal the interim relief in terms of Para-5(B) was granted. 2. The brief facts as narrated in the petition are that respondent No.2-original petitioner got married on 9.12.1998 at Gandhinagar with Nareshkumar Jayantilal Jani, but due to constant fights and irreconcilable differences, respondent No.2 and her husband lived separately after few months of marriage and the respondent No.2 has lived at her parent's place in Ahmedabad since then and out of the wedlock a son named Om was born on 22.11.1999 and the name of the respondent No2's son has been mentioned as Om Hina Trivedi in school records and on 2.12....
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Hardik Dipakbhai Patel and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
Oral Judgment: (R.P. Dholaria, J.) 1. The present application under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant “ State of Gujarat for leave to appeal against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 01.08.2013 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No.30 of 2011 acquitting the respondent herein “ original accused for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366, 376 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case in nutshell is as under:- [2.1] The complainant Sandhyaben Manharbhai Patel, mother of the victim, lodged the complaint before Panigate Police Station, Vadodara being I “ C.R.No.146/2008 against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366, 376 and 114 of the Indian Code. It is the case of the prosecution that on 21.06.2008, during the period between 10.00 to 12.00 hours, accused No.1 with the help of accused No.2 kidnapp...
Tag this Judgment!Jayvijaysinh Kishorsinh Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-2014
Oral Judgment: (K.J. Thaker, J.) 1. We have heard Mr. N.D. Nanavati learned Senior Counsel with Mr. H.C. Buch and Mr. Satyam Y. Chhaya learned advocates for the appellant and Mr. P.K. Jani learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 2. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 19.8.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 8955/2013, whereby, the learned Judge has dismissed the writ petition qua petitioner no. 2 and allowed the writ petition qua petitioner no. 1. Therefore, Letters Patent Appeal No. 1032/2013 is preferred by the appellant “ Jayvijaysinh Kishorsinh Chauhan and Letters Patent Appeal No. 1185/2013 is preferred by the State. 3. The matter of third detenue has been decided by this Court in LPA No. 1134/2013, who had preferred Special Civil Application No. 8718 of 2013 and his case is remanded to the learned Single Judge. The observations in para 10 and 11 of the said decision will apply to the facts of the app...
Tag this Judgment!Ccssa Vs. Chairman- Governing Body/Vice Chancellor Sardar Patel and Ot ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an association of the members of the staff engaged in œCost of Cultivation Scheme of Agro Economic Research Center?, seeks to challenge the action of the respondents in denying their legal right to get the pension in accordance with the service rules. 2. The case made out by the petitioner may be summarized as under: 2.1 In order to promote and study the agro-economic problems experienced in the various parts of the country, the respondent no.3- Union of India proposed to set up œAgro Economic Research Center? for western India at Vallabh Vidhyanagar under the then Vallabhbhai Vidhyapith (now known as œSardar Patel University?). 2.2 The said center covered the State of Rajasthan as well as the State of Gujarat. Likewise, similar centers were opened in different parts of the country. 2.3 The center for Gujarat and Rajasthan started functioning with effect from...
Tag this Judgment!Ashish Prafulchandra Pandya Vs. Neeta Pravinchandra Bhatt
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
Oral Judgment 1. The petitioner herein, challenges the order passed by learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, BhujKutch in H.M.P.Case No.76 of 2011 (H.M.P. 21 of 2010 Old) wherein the said Court has passed an order under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act requiring the petitioner to pay interim maintenance @ 6,500/from 28.09.2011. Learned trial Court also passed an order to pay Rs.3,500/for litigation expenses. 2. Heard the learned advocates for the parties. 3. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta for the petitioner has conceded that the liability to pay interim maintenance to the respondent. Learned advocate submitted that the amount of interim maintenance fixed by the learned trial court is on higher side. Considering the circumstances of the case, same is required to be interfered with. 4. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent has vehemently opposed this submission and has submitted that interim maintenance awarded by the learned trial Court does not call for any interferenc...
Tag this Judgment!Arunaben Jamnadas Bhavsar Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
Vijay Manohar Sahai, J. 1. Since, the order under challenge in both the letters patent appeals are common, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Both the appellants have challenged the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, Dated: 25.07.2013, rendered in Special Civil Application Nos. 11770 and 11784 of 2013, whereby, the petitions filed by the appellants, herein, were summarily dismissed. 3. This Court passed following order on 23.10.2013, while admitting the appeals; œThe present appeal is filed being aggrieved by order dated 25.07.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in SCA No.11784 of 2013, whereby the learned Single Judge is pleased to reject summarily the petition with cost of Rs.10,000/-. In response to notice, learned AGP Mr. Rashesh Rindani appears for the respondent State and invites attention of the Court to para 4 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which reads as under: œ4. Upon hearing learned advocate for...
Tag this Judgment!Swati Iat Utpadak Audyogik Sahakari Mandali Limited Vs. Gujarat Housin ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
Oral Judgment R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. The appellant “ original plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') has preferred present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and order dated 15th February, 2000 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the learned Judge) in Civil Suit No.4194 of 1985, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 2. The facts in nutshell are as under: "2.1. The plaintiff is a co-operative society registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. The respondent herein “ original defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant') invited tenders for the work of manufacturing and supplying of bricks of standard size. After scrutiny, the tender of the plaintiff was accepted and consequently work order came to be issued in favour of the plaintiff on 29th June, 1981. The work entrusted was required to be completed on or ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›