Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-19-2006
Reported in : 2007ACJ2750; (2007)1GLR890
Akil Kureshi, J.1. The appeals are admitted. Learned advocate Mr MTM Hakim waives notice of admission of the appeals for the claimants in each appeal. Since issues arising are primarily between the appellant-Insurance Company and the claimants, it is not necessary to hear the owner/driver of the offending vehicle. At the request of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the appeals are taken up for final disposal today.2. These appeals have been filed by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging a common judgment and two separate awards dated 29.4.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara in MAC Petition Nos.760 and 1878 of 1998.3. On 17.1.1998 while one Shri Timirbhai Shah, his wife Shilpaben Shah and minor son Vatsal were travelling in a maruti car going from Karjan to Vadodara, their car met with an accident. The car was hit by a matador bearing registration No. GJ-17-T 1393. The matador in question was insured by the appellant-Insurance Company....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-13-2006
Reported in : [2008]88SCL272(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. Admit. The Official Liquidator present in the court waives service of process of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are Secured Creditors. In view of the order proposed to be passed, we do not think notices are required to be issued to the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Even otherwise, respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have no stakes in the present matter. 2. The facts for disposal of the present appeal in nutshell are that certain properties of the company under liquidation were sought to be auctioned. There were bidders in different groups. The present appellant made the highest offer for group SB and submitted the earnest money deposit. When the matter came up before the learned Company Judge for confirmation of the sale and acceptance of the offer made by the appellant, certain objections were raised and the learned Company Judge observed that the Official Valuer's report was not proper. The valuation was to be re-done and the property was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-02-2006
Reported in : [2006(110)FLR1018]
Jayant Patel, J.1. The short facts of the case are that the petitioners, who have obtained admission in PTC after 12th Standard and thereafter on the basis of PTC have applied for the post of Vidhya Sahayak. The challenge by the petitioners in the petition is that the marking criteria for allotting 40 marks to the examination of HSC should not be equated with the examination of SSC and it has been submitted that there should be identical classification for counting of the marks on the basis of SSC examination. It is further the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have secured higher marks in SSC and lesser marks in HSC and if other candidates who have obtained admission in PTC after SSC, for the purpose of appointment of Vidhya Sahayak are to be considered on the basis of the marks in SSC, there is no reason why the petitioners should also be given same treatment. It is the contention of the petitioners that if the marking is reconsidered on the basis of SSC, the petitioners' ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-08-2006
Reported in : (2006)3GLR1831
..... cancelled when the highest offer of the petitioner was only rs. 10.86 crores. when nit of january 2006 brought highest tender of rs. 13.12 crores (approx.), the corporation acted in accordance with the instructions of the central vigilance commissioner by calling only the highest tenderer for negotiations so as to receive more than rs. 14 crores. hence, there would ..... court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was taken. even so, if the corporation has itself adopted a particular method of processing the tenders and acts without disclosing such method in the tender notice, the action could suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or at least unfairness as held in dutta associates pvt. ltd. v. indo .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-23-2006
Reported in : 2008(223)ELT361(Guj); 2008[9]STR126
ORDER1. The following question has been proposed for the admission of this appeal:Whether or not respondent is entitled for CENVAT credit at the higher rate paid on inputs, for which manufacturer of inputs on his own paid duty at the rate of 24% instead of 16%.?2. While considering the issue as to what extent CENVAT credit can be availed in the accepted facts, the Tribunal has considered as under:The respondents have made a prayer for decision on merits. Accordingly, I have heard the Ld. DR and have gone through the impugned order. The respondents took modvat credit of duty paid by the supplier on inputs and as reflected in the invoices. The revenue's contention is that the supplier should have paid 16% of duty as against 24% paid by them, in which case the respondents would have been entitled only to 16% rate of duty. However, no dispute has been initiated by the revenue at the supplier manufacturer of inputs end. It is a settled law that the duty paid by the manufacturer is eligible ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-02-2006
Reported in : (2006)2GLR1023
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition, though styled as being under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, in effect is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner challenges order dated 15th January, 2004 made by the trial Court below application Exh.226 in Special Civil Suit No. 26 of 1997 rejecting the application moved by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). 2. The petitioner herein is proposed defendant in Special Civil Suit No. 26 of 1997. The said suit has been instituted by respondent No. 12 herein (original plaintiff) while respondent Nos. 1 to 11 are original defendant Nos. 1 to 11. Except for the petitioner, the parties shall be referred to as per their respective description in the suit. 3. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that the petitioner is brother of defendant No. 5 and both of them are sons of deceased Haribhai Kalidas Patel. That the plaintiff and defendant No. 5 are lawfully marrie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-09-2006
Reported in : (2006)3GLR2007
..... the petitioner. the petitioner need not point out any independent prejudice because of delay in disciplinary proceedings. there are no averments in the memo of reply affidavit pointing out any act or omission on the part of the petitioner resulting in prolonging the disciplinary proceedings. it is true that the petitioner was not in any way responsible for such an inordinate .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : May-03-2006
Reported in : (2007)2GLR1735
..... cause of action for the purpose of questioning the constitutionality thereof in any high court of the country. a cause of action will arise only when the provisions of the act or some of them, when implemented, shall give rise to civil or evil consequences to the petitioner.the consequences of the order of reduction of pay would fall on the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-03-2006
Reported in : 2006(199)ELT798(Guj); 2008[10]STR99
ORDERD.A. Mehta, J.1. Heard Mr. P.M. Dave, learned Advocate for the petitioner. Notice returnable today. Mr. Jitendra Malkan waives service on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the parties the petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage today.2. This petition primarily challenges Show Cause Notices (i) Bearing F. No. V.23/15-31/Dem/OA/2005-06, dated 31-8-2005 issued by Commissioner of Central Excise, (ii) Bearing F. No. V.23/3-7/SCN/05-06, dated 29-9-2005 issued by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Mehsana and, (iii) Bearing F. No. V.23/3-36/SCN/05-06, dated 21-11-2005 issued by Commissioner of Central Excise, Kalol.3. When the matter came up for hearing on 23-1-2006 the learned Advocate for the petitioners was orally directed by the Court to approach the Commissioner of Central Excise and the matter was adjourned to 30-1-2006. The grievance of the petitioner was that the Commissioner had already made up his mind and was not inclined to gra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-10-2006
Reported in : [2006(111)FLR1038]
Sharad D. Dave, J.1. By filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and award delivered by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) No.182 of 1987, by which the Labour Court has directed the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the respondent workman on his original post with continuity of service and that the Labour Court has also granted back wages for the intervening period. 2. Heard Mr. H.C.Raval, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner Corporation and Mr. Mukesh H Rathod, learned advocate for the respondent workman. 3. At the hearing, it is submitted by Mr. Raval that the respondent workman has already been reinstated in service and, therefore, now the question which remains to be decided by this Court is with regard to back wages granted by the Labour Court vide impugned judgment and award. It is further submitted by Mr. Raval that there cannot be straight jacket formula for granting the back wages in favour of the concer...
Tag this Judgment!