Court : Gujarat
1. These petitions arise in similar factual background. They were therefore heard together and being disposed of by this common judgement. 2. Special Civil Application No.5386/2008 has been filed by residents of village Zarpara, Taluka Mundra, District Kutch. In this petition filed in the nature of PIL, petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside orders passed by respondent No.1 and 2 i.e. the State and the Collector of the District Kutch, by virtue of which certain lands allotted to Village Panchayat for the purpose of Gauchar(grazing) came to be resumed by the Sate and ultimately came to be allotted to respondent no.3 for creation of Mundra Special Economic Zone (“Mundra SEZ” for short).Principal objection of the petitioners to such orders passed by the State authorities is that the land earmarked for the purpose of Gauchar in the village is not adequate looking to the cattle population and the ratio fixed by the State Government to be maintained for such purpo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The present First Appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 30/12/2010 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Kheda at Nadiad below Ex.3 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1658 of 2009 awarding Rs.25,000/- to the original claimant by way of interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for “No Fault Liability”. 2. Having heard Mr.Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - original Opponent No.2 – ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, as the impugned order is passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by which the Tribunal has awarded interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the present appeal is not entertained. However, it is observed that deposit of any amount pursuant to the said order, the same shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties in the main claim petition and all the defences and contentions, which are avai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
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!Court : Gujarat
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!Court : Gujarat
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed assailing the method and manner in which powers are exercised by the authority under various provisions of Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (for short Act of 1958) and Bombay Stamp (Determination of Market Value of Property) Rules, 1984 (for short Rules of 1984) and challenges preparation and usage of the Final Annual Statement of Rates 2008 (ASR) (popularly known as Jantri) published and made effective from 1.4.2008 in the State of Gujarat. 2. In para 24 of this petition, the petitioners have prayed to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the Final Annual Statement of Rates, 2008 published and made effective from 1.4.2008 by respondents for the area comprising of Bhuj Taluka, District: Kutch. The petitioners have further prayed that authorities under the provisions of the Act be directed to follow and adhere the statutory provisions under Bombay Stamp Act, 1958...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
ORDER :1. Leave to amend as per the draft amendment submitted today by Mr DV Shah learned advocate the petitioner. Necessary amendment be carried out during the course of the day. 2. Rule returnable on 16.6.2011. Mr SN Thakkar learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents no. 2,3 and 4 and Mr. Janak Raval learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 5. 3. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties on the interim relief, as prayed for by the petitioner in the present petition. 4. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is member of Sardarganj Cooperative Bank Limited, seeking direction against the respondents for quashing and setting aside the voters' list published by the respondent no. 2 on 4.6.2011 and seeking further directions to prepare fresh voters list as per the by-laws of the Bank. It appears that at the time of filing of the petition, the objections raised by the petitioner agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") is filed by the applicants for seeking anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest for non-bailable offence punishable under Sections 395, 365, 506, 294 (KH) of Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of Bombay Police Act.2. As per the case of the complainant who is studying and also a friend of accused No.1, on 17.3.2011 called accused No.1 and Rakesh to settle the dispute amicably at Havmor Restaurant, Nr. Vastrapur Lake, Ahmedabad and accused No.1 was present along with two other unknown persons in his car and complainant was forcibly asked to sit in the car and the said car was driven and the complainant was beaten by all of them and golden chain and bracelet were snatched away and thereafter the complainant was kicked and beaten and dropped at a distant place.2.1. In the above backdrop of the allegations the applicants preferred anticipatory bail application before learned Sessions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Plaintiff is a Company registered in Liberia engaged in the business of supply of bunkers. The defendant-vessel is a Tanzania flagged vessel presently in port and harbour Alang. The plaintiff seeks security from the defendant for a sum of USD 1 million towards security for arbitration in New York arising out of unpaid supply of fuel and bunkers as mentioned in paragraphs 2 to 4 of the plaint.2. It is not in dispute that the claim made in the present suit is about supply of necessaries and no one disputes that it is not 'maritime claim' and the defendant also accepts the same.3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the defendant has raised preliminary objection that the suit is not maintainable in view of the claim made only for security pending arbitration and no claim is preferred for any money decree and reliance is placed on the judgment dated 17^th February 2011 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in O.J. Appeal No.6 of 2011 confirming the decision dated 24.1.2011 of this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The present controversy relates to an important question `whether an intra-court appeal (Letters Patent Appeal) under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is maintainable against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the same High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while exercising such power in its criminal jurisdiction'.2. There being conflicting views of two Division Benches of this Court, and some ambiguity whether there can be separate civil and criminal jurisdiction with regard to the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, cases were referred to Larger Bench for its decision.3. The facts giving rise to these appeals in brief are as follows: L.P.A. NO.335/2010: The State of Gujarat preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in Special Criminal Application No. 989 of 2009 before this Court against one Nitinbhai Shantilal Bhagat and another (appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 335 of 2001) challenging the judgement and order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. BA Desai with learned advocate Mr. Suthar for learned advocate Mr. NK Majmudar appearing on behalf of petitioner IPCL Employees Association through General Secretary, learned Advocate General Mr. KB Trivedi with learned advocate Mr. KD Gandhi appearing for Nanavati Association for respondent no. 1 on Caveat.2. The present petition was heard by this Court on 2/5/2011. Thereafter, matter was kept reserved for judgment. In this petition, petitioner Association has challenged award passed by Industrial Tribunal no. 1, Baroda exh 26 in reference IT no. 95/2009 dated 7/2/2011. The Industrial Tribunal no. 1, Baroda has accepted settlement arrived between respondent no. 1 Reliance Industries Ltd, respondent no. 2 IPCL Employees Union and respondent no. 3 Petrochemicals Employees Union vide exh 14 and found to be just, proper, fair and reasonable. Therefore, in terms of aforesaid settlement exh 14, award has been passed and disposed of reference in terms of ...
Tag this Judgment!