Court : Gujarat
1. The application on hand has been titled and described by the applicant as "application for review of the judgment and order dated 29.10.2010."2. The applicant is the original petitioner and appellant and present opponents are original respondents.3. The applicant is one of the students of opponent No.2 institute in present application.4. The respondent No.2-institute had, on the charge that the petitioner was involved in act of ragging, imposed certain penalty on the petitioner and other five students, vide circular/order dtd.1.2.20105. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant herein had preferred a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.3669 of 2010 which was rejected by learned single Judge vide order dated 25^th March, 2010. Against the said order rejecting the petition, the petitioner preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.528 of 2010 which was decided by judgment and order dated 29^th October, 2010. As the title of the application suggests, the applicant seeks review of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Present Appeal under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 17.11.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by present appellant against the order dated 27.3.2009 passed by the Revisional Authority in Revision Application No. 42 of 2005. By the said order dated 27.3.2009 the Revisional Authority confirmed the order dated 6.8.2001 passed by the Collector, Surendranagar in Appeal No. 68 of 1999, by which the Collector had confirmed the order dated 2.2.2000 passed by the Deputy Collector. By the impugned orders the sale and consequent transfer of land in question in favour of the appellant is held to be in breach of Section 54 of Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Land Ordinance, 1949 ("Ordinance" for short) and the authority has directed in exercise of power under Section 75 of the Ordinance, to evict the appellant from the land in question. The petition against the said orders is also dismissed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Dipak C. Raval for petitioner. He submitted that respondent was appointed as daily wager driver in Primary Health Center when there was additional work available. Respondent workman was relieved from work as work was not available. Therefore, respondent raised an industrial dispute under machinery of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was referred to for adjudication to Labour Court, Surendranagar, registered as Reference (LCS) No. 24 of 2004. Statement of claim was filed by workman against which written statement was filed by petitioner wherein it was stated that appointment of respondent was casual in nature and respondent was not appointed through any selection procedure and respondent also not supplied his consent letter to work as and when work was available. Labour Court, Surendranagar passed award on 24^th March, 2010 and granted reinstatement. According to learned advocate Mr. Raval for petitioner, Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Surendran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Present Second Appeal is filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation appellant original defendant posing the substantial questions of law as follows:(1) Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the dispute between the employer and employee when the employee is a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?(2) Whether the Appellate Court is wrong in setting aside the finding given under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the trial Court?(3) Whether the Appellate Court has power to sit over the finding given by the departmental authority under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure?(4) Whether the Appellate Court has power to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case under Order 41 of the C.P.C.?2. The short facts of the case briefly summarized are that the original plaintiff respondent herein filed Regular Civil Suit No. 147 of 1984 challenging the order of dismissal on vari...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. In these cases, while the petitioners have challenged the validity of the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2008 [hereinafter referred to as "the Amending Act, 2008"], sought for a declaration that Sections 67, 73, 73A, 74, 74D, 76, 81 and 81A of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Principal Act"] as amended by the Amending Act, 2008 are unconstitutional and invalid. Prayer has also been made to set aside the guidelines dated 10.7.2007 and 29.4.2008 issued by the Reserve Bank of India [hereinafter referred to as "the RBI"].2. When the matter was taken up on 10.8.2010, Mr SN Soparkar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the RBI, informed that both the guidelines dated 10.7.2007 and 29.4.2008 issued by the RBI have been substituted by fresh guidelines dated 18.6.2008 and all the co-operative societies have been allowed to function as per their Bye-laws.3. An affidavit is also filed on behalf of the 1^s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14/8/2008 rendered by Ld. Judge, City Civil Court No. 10, Ahmedabad [for short 'the City Court'] in Civil Misc. Application No. 63/2008, whereby the City Court allowed said application filed by the respondent herein under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [for short 'the Act'] and set aside the award dated 02/12/2007 rendered by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator. The original claimants, in the result, preferred this appeal. Thus, the appellants were original claimants and the respondent was original respondent in the said arbitration proceedings and, therefore, for the sake of convenience, the appellants and the respondent shall be hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants' and 'the respondent' respectively.2. Both the parties happened to be partners of a partnership firm, which carried on business in clothes in the name and style of M/s. Sultansingh Mohansingh. A dispute took place amongst the partners, resul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Since common issue is involved in both these petitions, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. Special Civil Application No.10105 of 2007 is filed by the petitioner, namely, Star Infrastructure requesting this Court to allow the petitioner to rescind and repudiate its original contract with the Corporation concerning the sale to it of Final Plot Nos.98 & 162 by holding that the Corporation has unilaterally altered the original terms of the auction sale vide order dated 23.03.2007, and that has resulted in a material variation of the original auction terms. The petitioner has also prayed for the direction to the Corporation to refund the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of a sum of Rs.10 Lacs given by the petitioner on 07.02.2007 to the respondent Corporation. The petitioner has further prayed for the direction commanding the Corporation not to forfeit the EMD of a sum of Rs.10 Lacs deposited by the petitioner with the respondent Corpora...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 30.8.2010 in Civil Application for amendment No.8945 of 2010 has been dismissed.2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we have taken up this appeal for final disposal, at the admission stage.3. Special Civil Application No.6416 of 1994 and Civil Application No.6416 of 1994 and Civil Application No.3125 of 2008 were disposed by a common order dated 4.4.2008. The order is extracted as under:"1) Heard learned counsel for the parties.2) Mr.P.H.Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant-original petitioner, relying on the letter dated 8.2.2007 addressed by Zonal Officer and Superintending Engineer of opponent-Department and submits that in case if the petition is withdrawn, there may be some delay in granting deemed date, as prayed for.3) Mr.Deepak Patel, learned counsel for the opponents Nos.2 and 3 submits that if the main Special Civil Application is withdrawn by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged judgement and order dated 02.12.2009 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 263 of 2003 by 7^th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat, below Exh. 1250, whereby the application was rejected.2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners-original plaintiffs instituted Special Civil Suit No. 263 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Surat, inter alia, seeking a declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 22.01.2003 claimed to have been executed in favour of respondent No. 1 are ab initio void and thereupon respondent No. 1 would not derive any right, title and interest in respect of the concerned properties. The petitioners moved an application at Exh. 1250 under Order 7 Rule 4(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking permission of the trial court to produce on record the concerned documentary evidence referred to therein. However, present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have submitted their replies i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Leave to add the substantial questions of law as proposed vide amendment dated 27.10.2010.2. In this appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act), the appellant-revenue has challenged order dated 1^st June, 2009, made by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad (the Tribunal) proposing the following questions:"(a) Whether the deemed export made by the Notice to other 100% EOUs in the country in terms of para 9.20 of Exim policy 1997-2002 were to be considered for the purpose of para 9.9(a), 9.9(b) and 9.20 of Exim policy 1997-2002 after taking consideration the definition of "Export" as described under Section 2(18) of Customs Act, 1962 as the term "Export" is neither defined in Exim Policy 1997-2002 nor in Central Excise Act, 1944.(b) If the Deemed Export cannot be treated as "Export" in terms of Notification No.2/95 CE dated 04.01.95 then, can M/s.Sanju Silk Mills be permitted to clear goods in DTA against the Deemed E...
Tag this Judgment!