Court : Gujarat
1. The Petitioner is a foreign company based in Canada and has set up a project office in India with the permission of Reserve Bank of India. The Petitioner is subject to income tax in India in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax laws in India. The Petitioner is engaged in exploration, development and production of mineral oil and natural gas. The Petitioner has been awarded the right to explore, develop and produce mineral oil in various blocks. For this purpose, the Petitioner has entered into what is known as "Production Sharing Contract" (for short the PSC) with the Government of India for exploration, development and production of "mineral oil". The PSC specifies the area over which the Petitioner has been given such rights. PSC defines the Contract Area as a Block. One such PSC was entered into on 23rd September, 1994 and another on 17th July, 2001 for the exploration, development and production of mineral oil in the Hazira and Surat block respectively. The Petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The Petitioner is a foreign company based in Canada and has set up a project office in India with the permission of Reserve Bank of India. The Petitioner is subject to income tax in India in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax laws in India. The Petitioner is engaged in exploration, development and production of mineral oil and natural gas. The Petitioner has been awarded the right to explore, develop and produce mineral oil in various blocks. For this purpose, the Petitioner has entered into what is known as "Production Sharing Contract" (for short the PSC) with the Government of India for exploration, development and production of "mineral oil". The PSC specifies the area over which the Petitioner has been given such rights. PSC defines the Contract Area as a Block. One such PSC was entered into on 23rd September, 1994 and another on 17th July, 2001 for the exploration, development and production of mineral oil in the Hazira and Surat block respectively. The Petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Cav Judgment: 1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 06.02.2012 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur on an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the 'Code') filed below Exh.106 in Special Civil Suit No.5 of 2008 by the petitioners - original plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiffs') for amendment of their plaint. 2. With a view to properly understand and appreciate controversy involved in this petition, case set-up by the parties, out of which this petition has arisen and on which, learned Senior Counsel for the parties were not at variance at the time of hearing, needs to be briefly noted. The facts are as under:- 2.1. The plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No.5 of 2008 in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur against the respondent - defendant in the month of April, 2008 for specific performance of Agreement to Sale dated 09.04.2007 executed by the respondent - de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ. 1. By filing this Special Civil Application, the employees of Limbdi Nagarpalika, Limbdi, Dist. Surendranagar has prayed for the following reliefs. "7(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 21.6.2013 which is at Annexure-A to this petition and all consequential orders and further be pleased to restore to the employees of the Limbdi Nagar Palika the salary in the pay scale recommended by the Fifth Pay Commission. 1.1 Subsequently, by filing a draft amendment, the petitioners have made the following further prayers. "7(BB) Your Lordships may be pleased to declare circular No. PGR/122009/1127/R dated 16.09.2010 and No. PGR/1098/83/R dated 2.6.1998 which are at Annexure:-W collectively, ultra vires the mandate of part 9 and Part 9A of the Constitution of India, so also ultra vires the mandate of Article 14 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment 1. This petition is directed against the judgement of the Labour Court, Junagadh dated 6.12.2006 in Complaint Case No.4/2002. Brief facts are as under : 2. The petitioner Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board (the Board for short) had engaged the respondent as a typist. Though there is some dispute about the nature and the terms on which he was so engaged, it is undisputed that he worked as a typist from March 1998 till June 2002. On 13.12.2001, the Union of the workers made an application to the Board on behalf of respondent workman pointing out that he was engaged as a typist since March 1998, initially on a fixed salary of Rs.900/per month. Later on he was being paid on daily wage basis. Since last two months he was paid once again fixed salary, this time at the rate of 1300/per month. The salary comes to less than minimum wages fixed by the Government. He has been discharging duties sincerely and honestly for more than three years. His service therefore, may be regu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)2GLR1436
J.C. Upadhyaya, J.1. The petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India contains the following prayers:18.A. This Honorable Court be pleased to issue a writ of or in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the order dated 10-9-2007 passed below Exh. 29 in Special Civil Suit No. 89 of 2006, by the learned 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar,B. Pending admission and final hearing of this petition, the Honorable Court may be pleased to stay the execution and operation and implementation of the order dated 10-9-2007 passed below Exhibit 29 in Special Civil Suit No. 89 of 2006, by the learned 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar,C. Pending admission and final hearing of this petition, the Honorable Court may be pleased to stay the further proceedings/hearing of Special Civil Suit No. 89 of 2006, pending before the learned 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar.2. The facts leading to the petition, in brief, are as under:2.1. The deceas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)3GLR2167
Mohit S. Shah, J.1. This group of 13 appeals, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the common judgment dated 25-8-2008 of the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 30705 of 2007 and connected petitions challenging removal of the appellants from the office of members of Bopal Gram Panchayat under Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Elections to Bopal Gram Panchayat were held on 25-12-2006. One Shantaben Bachubhai Patel was elected as Sarpanch. The present appellants, 13 in number, along with 13 other persons were elected as members of Bopal Gram Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gram Panchayat'). The first meeting of the Panchayat was held on 17-1-2007. By a show-cause notice dated 7-8-2007, the Sarpanch and other members of the Gram Panchayat including the present appellants, were called upon to show cause why they should not be removed from the office of Sarpanch and members of the G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2008)2GLR1491
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.1. The applicant, original plaintiff [herein after referred to as the plaintiff] has approached this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the order dated 28/12/2004 passed by learned 4th Jt. Civil Judge, (S.D.), Vadodara, below exhibit-64 in Civil Misc. Application No. 179 of 2003 preferred by the original defendant No. 7, respondent herein above, under provision of Order XXXVII Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the decree dated 15.09.2003 passed by 9th Jt. Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara, in Special Summary Suit No. 202 of 2001 preferred by the plaintiff against Cherotar Nagrik Sahkari Bank, a co-operative bank, and others, including the present respondent i.e. HDFC Bank for recovery of Rs. 7,08,10,040 (Rs. Seven crore eight lacs ten thousand and forty only)2. Facts in brief giving rise to this Revision Application deserve to be set out as under.The original plaintiff runs his business in the name of Apex Chemicals an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2007Guj192; (2007)2GLR1833
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioners-original plaintiffs have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Vadodara below an application Exh. 154 in Regular Civil Suit No. 774 of 1987 on 3-1-2005, on the ground that the said order is absolutely illegal, unjust, improper, irrational, invalid and unreasonable. It is also challenged on the ground that the said order is passed with total non-application of mind and on misconception of facts and law. It is further challenged on the ground that it is passed in violation of and in utter disregard of the statutory provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and against the judicial pronouncements.2. Notice was issued by this Court on 22-2-2005 and ad-interim relief in terms of Para 8(E) of the petition was granted and further proceedings of the Regular Civil Suit No. 774 of 1987 were stayed. The Court has also permitted the petitioner to delete the name of petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2008ACJ2436
M.S. Shah, J.1. This appeal by the insurer of one of the vehicles involved in the motor vehicle accident challenges the judgment and order dated 30.7.2001 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kachchh-Bhuj in the M.A.C.P. No. 354 of 1992 awarding compensation amount of Rs. 18,00,000 with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition to widow, children and brother of the deceased.2. On 18.3.1992, Ramjibhai Bhurabhai Makwana, a Forest Officer in the services of the State Government and his friend Sumarbhai were travelling on motor cycle from Adesar to Bhachau on Ahmedabad-Kandal National Highway. Ramjibhai was driving the motor cycle and Sumarbhai was the pillion rider. When the motor cycle reached near village Vondh, the chhakada rickshaw insured by the appellant insurance company came from the opposite direction and dashed against the motor cycle. On account of the collision between the two vehicles, Ramjibhai, driver of the m...
Tag this Judgment!