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 : (2006)200CTR(Guj)649; [2006]284ITR396(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench SB has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in relying upon Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act as it stood prior to the amendment with effect from 1-4-1989 thereby cancelling the order of C.I.T. Under Section 2632. The assessment year is 1985-86. The assessee's accounting period is 1-7-1983 to 30-6-1984 and the assessee was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act by order dated 4-1-1988.3. On 31-12-1984, the assessee company amalgamated with M/s Nestler Boilers Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the accounts of the assessee company were made up for a period of six months from 1-7-1984 to 31-12-1984 showing net profit of Rs. 2,86,074/-. The assessee company accordingly filed the return of income for assessment year 1986-87. Assessment came to be framed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1955CriLJ267
Baxi, J.(1) This writ petition is against the order of ex-ternment passed against the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Central Saurashtra, Under Section 47 (B) of the Saurashtra District Police (Amendment) Act, 1951.(2) A notice Under Section 47(E) was served on the petitioner and after hearing his explanation and examining a witness produced by him the learned District Magistrate passed the above order on 29-7-52 ordering the petitioner to remove himself from the limits of the Central Saurashtra Division by a specified route to Bhavnagar and not to re-enter the said limits for a period of two years without permission in writing from the Government.(3) The petitioner's learned advocate challenged the order on various grounds. His first objection was that the material allegations against the petitioner mentioned in the notice were vague and lacked sufficient particulars to enable him to give an effective and complete explanation. His second contention was that these allegations di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1996)1GLR812
S.M. Soni, J.1. Petitioners, Party-in-Person, have prayed for taking necessary action under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act against the respondents for alleged deliberate and wilful non-compliance of the order of the Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short), confirmed by the High Court.2. Few facts necessary to appreciate the contentions raised are as under:One Sanghvi Education Trust, of which respondent No. 2 is the Managing Trustee, is running Sanghvi Primary School, of which respondent No. 1 is the Principal. Principal and Managing Trustee is the same person, viz. Mr. Dineshbhai N. Sanghvi. Respondent No. 3 is the District Education Officer for the city of Ahmedabad. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are serving in the said school as Assistant Teachers. Said school is a recognised one under the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947. The management of the said school is liable to pay salary to its teachers, as per the pay and allowances declared for them by the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)3GLR2192
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 1st April, 2000 in Special Civil ApplicationNo. 5981 of 1999 with Special Civil Application No. 1365 of 2000 and Special Civil Application No. 9076 of 2000 (Satish Maganlal Vora v. Union of India, reported in 2001 (3) GLR 2173), rejecting these writ petitions. Both the appeals have been argued together fully and finally by both the sides since they involved common questions and are filed by the same appellant, who had filed these pelicions. 2. In Special Civil Application No. 5981 of 1999, the appellant had challenged the validity of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractice's) Order, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Order of 1998') and seeking a declaration that the petitioner's product 'Patrex' was not covered by the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and impugned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1983Guj34; (1983)1GLR292
ORDERB.K. Mehta, J.1. By order of May 4, 1982, this suit was stayed for reasons to be subsequently pronounced which are stated hereunder :On behalf of the original first and fourth defendant, the owners of vessel Hoegh Orchid, and their agents in India respectively, a notice of motion was taken out for a stay of the suit and further proceedings mainly on the ground that there was a foreign arbitration clause in the chartered party contract entered into between the plaintiffs on the one hand and the said defendants on the other. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to set out briefly a few facets which necessitated the filing of the present suit by the Union of India and the Food Corporation of India respectively as plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. On or about July 14, 1973 the Union of India, the first plaintiff herein, entered into a chartered party contract with Lief Hoegh and Co., Oslo, Norway who are the owners of the aforesaid vessel Hoegh Orchid wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1993Guj20
Panchal, J.1. In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the Constitutional validity of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Clause 21A of the Cotton Textile (Control) Order, 1948 as well as the legality and validity of the orders dated 7-1-1978, 7-4-1978, 27-4-1978, 11-8-1978, 27-12-1978, 29/30th December, 1978 passed by the Textile Commissioner and the order dated 8th July, 1979 passed by the Central Government under the provisions of the Cotton Textile (Control) Order, 1948, which have been produced at Annexures E (i), D, E(ii), G. H, I. J and K respectively to the petition, the petitioners have given up the challenge to Clauses 20 and 22 of the Cotton Textile (Control) Order, 1948 after the petitioners were permitted to carry out the amendment in the petition.2. It is necessary to refer to certain factual background to appreciate the contentions raised by Mr. Joshi before us in this petition. The petitione...
Tag this Judgment!