Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2006)IILLJ938Guj
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Payment of Gratuity Authority on 24.10.1997 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity on 28.10.1998.2. This Court has admitted the petition and rule was issued on 25.10.1999.3. The case of the petitioner was that the petitioner had joined the respondent No. 3 Factory in the year 1962 and left the said organization on 31.07.1995 by tendering his resignation. The petitioner was employed as Works Manager of a factory at Surat owned by the respondent Company, registered office of which is at Bombay. The petitioner has applied for gratuity vide his application dated 02.09.1995. Since the respondent Company has not taken any concrete action except for giving assurances, the petitioner has preferred an application dated 25.02.1997 before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1962)3GLR33
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Gujarat against the acquittal of the respondent who was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 34 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act for having contravened Section 18(2) of the same Act in that he did not send copies of the accounts in respect of three money-lending transactions dated 24-12-57 27 and 30-12-57 relating to loans advanced by him to Kisnad Group Co-operative Multi-purpose Society. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Broach who tried the case acquitted the respondent on the ground that a loan to a Co-operative society was not included in the definition of loan contained in Section 2(9) of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act. On this ground he acquitted the respondent although according to the Magistrate all the facts about the advancing of the loans were admitted by the respondent who was accused.2. In appeal it is contended by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State that the view taken...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the order impugned dated 14.01.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in Criminal Appeal No.164 of 2010 by which the prayer for bail made by the petitioner-juvenile was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Hazaribag on 09.12.2010 was affirmed in Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 70 of 2010, corresponding to G.R.No. 2980 of 2010 and the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner was arrested but he was declared juvenile after determination of his age by the Juvenile Justice Board on 18.12.2010. The F.I.R. was lodged against as many as 11 named accused persons including the petitioner-juvenile for the alleged offence under Sections 376/354/306/509/511 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 66A/66B/67A/67B and 72 of the the Information and Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.2. Learned Counsel Mr. Nilesh Kumar submitted that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1981ACJ207; AIR1980Guj172; (1979)2GLR371
Nanavatl, J. 1. The question of law, and of some importance, which arises in these revision applications for our consideration is whether a consignor who is not an owner of a part of the goods consigned by him (whom we shall call 'consignor-non-owner' for the sake of convenience) along with his own goods and under the same parcel way bill, is competent to file a suit for recovery of compensation from the Railway administration for loss, destruction, deterioration or damage caused to the goods as a result of delay or detention on the part of the Railway administration in their carriage? This question being common ~to all these revision applications, they are all disposed of together by this common judgment.2. The acts in all these cases are similar; and, therefore, we will refer to the representative facts of Civil Revision Application No. 272 of 1977 wily. It arises out of Regular Civil Suit No. 3963 of 1970 filed in the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad, by M/s.Tolaram, Hariram and K. A....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)22VST569(Guj)
J.M. Panchal, J.1. All the above numbered petitions, which are instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution, are directed against Public Circular dated September 2, 2005 issued by the Sales Tax Commissioner, State of Gujarat, whereby it is declared that the view expressed in Public Circular dated February 19, 2001 that the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Coastal Chemicals Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer, A.P. and Ors. : AIR1999SC3855 holding that the natural gas used as fuel cannot be treated as consumable goods, is based on the language of Section 5B of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, which is quite different from the language of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 and the Rules framed thereunder and, therefore, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Coastal Chemicals Limited (supra) is not applicable to the cases arising under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, is no longer valid in view of the decision of the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2007(115)FLR600]; (2008)IILLJ175Guj
K.A. Puj, J.1. The applicant - third party, namely, Navjagrut Labour Union, a Regd. Union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 represented by its General Secretary Shri Manoj R. Rajput, who was duly authorised by 106 employees, has filed this application seeking permission of this Court to be joined as respondent No. 3 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1164/1998 and also in Special Civil Application No. 8030/1997.2. The application was opposed by the opponent No. 1 - original appellant - original petitioner i.e. Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited. An affidavit-in-reply as well as written submissions were filed during the course of hearing. Similarly, application is also opposed by opponent No. 2 - orig. respondent No. 1 i.e. Electricity Mazdoor Sabha, a representative, Union. An affidavit-in-reply is filed on March 29, 2007. The applicant has also filed an affidavit on March 15, 2007 along with the affidavits of more than 200 employees stating that they have left the Electricity Mazdoor. Sab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2008)1GLR124
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties.2. RULE. Learned advocate Mrs. Sangeeta Pahwa for M/s. Thakkar Associates waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned GP Mr. Sunit Shah waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 - State Authorities.3. Today, all the learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties requested this Court to take up this group of matters for hearing and final disposal. Therefore, this Court has taken up this group of matters for hearing and final disposal today with the consent of all the learned advocates.4. The petitioners challenged the award passed by Labour Court, Gandhidham (Kachchh) in Reference (LCG) No. 4 of 2005 to 48 of 2005 with No. 62 of 2005 to 94 of 2005 with No. 100 of 2005 to 102 of 2005 dated 30th September 2006, wherein, Labour Court, Gandhidham has rejected all the References on the ground that Assistant Labour Commi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2007]138CompCas204(Guj); [2007]79SCL47(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. This judgement shall dispose of Company Petition Nos. 9 and 10 of 2006. 2. Company Petition No. 10 of 2006 has been filed under Sections 78, 100, 391 and 393 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short) by the Company named Core Healthcare Limited, a company incorporated under the Act in the matter of a composite Scheme of Arrangement in the nature of compromise with the lenders and reconstruction, reorganisation of capital and demerger between Core Healthcare Limited and Nirma Limited and their respective shareholders. The petitioner-Company has prayed for the following reliefs:(a) The Modified Composite Scheme of Arrangement referred to in para-15 of this petition and being Annex. with this petition hereto, be sanctioned by this Hon'ble Court so as to be binding on all Equity Shareholders, Class 'A' Lenders and Class 'B' Lenders of the Petitioner Company and on the Petitioner Company;(b) That the Petitioner Company do within 30 days from the date of sealing of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)2GLR1322
K.M. Thaker, J.1. Present petition has been taken out under Sections 391(1) and (2) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('1956 Act' for short) seeking below mentioned relief.18(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to sanction the Scheme of Arrangement being Annexure-C to the petition and declare the same to be binding on the petitioner-Company and the equity shareholders of the petitioner-Company and all persons concerned under the Scheme;Thus, the petitioner seeks sanction for the Scheme of arrangement ('the Scheme' for short) which is at Annexure-C and a declaration that the said Scheme, upon sanction, shall be binding to all concerned persons.MATRIX OF FACTS2. Earlier, an application being Company Application No. 426 of 2008 was taken out by this petitioner with a prayer for direction to convene the meetings. In the said Company Application No. 426 of 2008, this Court passed an order dated 29-7-2008 directing the petitioner to convene the meetings of equity shareholders in accordance with t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
CAV JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA By way of this writ-petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in the nature of a public interest litigation, the petitioner, a resident of Baroda, claiming to be a public spirited citizen of India and an activist, has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(A) Be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Ministry of Environment and Forests, respondent no.1 herein to revoke Environmental Clearance accorded to M/s. Electrotherm (India) Ltd., respondent no.3 herein, for expansion of its steel plant at Survey No. 325, 326, 339, 344 and 350 / 1 / 2 / Paiki, Milestone No. 310, National Highway No.8-A, Village : Samakhiyali, Taluka : Bhachau, District : Kutch, with immediate effect, till (i) environmental norms, (ii) EIA Notification 1994/2006 and (iii) directions issued by this Hon'ble Court in its judgment order dated 09.12.2004 in Special Civil Application Nos. 14460/2004, 14813/2004 and 14819/2004 are strictly complied with by the s...
Tag this Judgment!