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 : (1963)4GLR662
V.B. Raju, J.1. The applicants suit to recover Rs. 230/- from the Union of India as owning and representing the Western Railway on the ground that the amount was wrongfully recovered from the plaintiffs as wharfage and demurrage charges was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the suit was barred under the provisions of Section 26 read with Section 3(14) and Section 32 of the Indian Railways Act. This view is now challenged in revision.The relevant provisions of the Indian Railways Act read as follows:Sec 26. Bar of jurisdiction of ordinary Courts in certain matters. Except as provided in this Act no suit shall be instituted or proceeding taken for anything done or any omission made by a railway administration in violation or contravention of any provision of this Chapter.Section 32 of the Indian Railways Act has been repealed by the Indian Railways (Amendment) Act 1957 (58 of 1957). But the section as it stood before it was repealed read as follows:A railway administration ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1963CriLJ556; (1963)0GLR563; (1963)IILLJ540Guj
Divan, J. 1. The appellant, Sahebkhan Umarkhan, who was the sarpanch of Hingolgadh Panchayat, from 1 August, 1959 to 28 June, 1960, was alleged to have committed dishonest and criminal misappropriation of various amounts aggregating to Rs. 3,000 and odd. In respect of these criminal misappropriations, two separate trials were commenced against the accused before the Special Judge, Rajkot district, Rajkot. In Special Criminal Case No. 17 of 1961, the accused was charged with having committed dishonest misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 2,506.62, during the period 1 August, 1959 to 30 July, 1960 and thereby having committed offence under S. 409, Indian Penal Code, and S. (5)(1)(c) punishable under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In Special Criminal Case No. 2 of 1962, the same accused was charged for having dishonestly misappropriated an amount of Rs. 656.97 during the period from 1 August, 1960 to 28 June, 1961 and thereby having committed offences punishable under S. 409, In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Cav Judgment: Bhaskar Bhattacharya, C.J. 1. This is a Reference under Section 54[1-A] of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 (Act), which has been made by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, in which this Bench has permitted the respondents no. 2 to 4 to appear as interveners vide order dated September 12, 2012 passed in OJ CA Nos. 227 of 2012 and 273 of 2012. 2. The brief facts of the case leading to the presentation of this Reference may be summed up thus: 2.1 The petitioner needed financial assistance for setting up an Ultra Mega Power Project in the area of Kutch-Bhuj and for that purpose, it secured assistance from few lenders. The lenders, thirteen in number, formed a consortium as a trust and executed a security trustee agreement inter se appointing one banker, viz. the State Bank of India, as a lead trustee, called, the security trustee. The duties of the security trustee are carved out in the said agreement of security trustees. The petitioner executed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2007CriLJ4481
ORDERIt is ordered that the court shall hold an inquiry in accordance with Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. for the offences described in the complaint while postponing the proceedings/order against the accused persons. The complainant and his witnesses shall remain present on 10.2.1986 for inquiry.A number of documents were filed and the complainant was again examined on oath on 03.4.1986. The complainant produced contemporaneous record and the representations made to several authorities. In all, seven witnesses, including the doctor who treated the deceased, were examined and several relevant documents were produced and accepted in evidence. Remarkably, summons were issued to some of the petitioners themselves and, in reply to the notices issued for production of relevant police record, it was submitted in writing that the record being very important and confidential, it could not be produced in the court. 6. With the above backdrop of facts, the first argument of the learned Counsel for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2007Guj203; (2008)2GLR1559
ORDERD.N. Patel, J.1. Learned Counsel for the respective parties waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents.Important issues have been raised for the adjudication by this Court, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, viz.:(I) Whether the third parry is entitled to get, written notice, of request of applicant (who is seeking information), so as:(i) to allow/permit the third party to treat the information (relating to or supplied by the third party) as confidential, if so far not treated as confidential; and(ii) to oppose the disclosure of such information i.e. information relating to or supplied by the third party and has been treated as confidential by the third party under Section 11(1) to be read with Section 7(7) of the Act 2005.(II) Whether the third party is entitled to get an opportunity of personal hearing before disclosure of information relating to or supplied by the third party and has been treated as confidential by the third party under Section 11(1) to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2008)1GLR273
M.S. Shah, J.1. These petitions filed by M/s. Jindal Power Ltd. and P.T.C. India Limited challenge the communications dated 12-1-2007 of Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the first respondent' or 'the Corporation') cancelling the Letters of Intent which were awarded to the petitioners on 8-12-2006 for entering into Power Purchase Agreements.2. Facts:2.1 M/s. Jindal Power Ltd. (petitioner in Spl. C.A. No. 2186 of 2007) is engaged in the business of the generation and sale of electricity. P.T.C. India Ltd. (formerly known as Power Trading Corporation of India Ltd. - petitioner in Spl. C.A. No. 3514 of 2007) is a Government of India initiated Public Private Partnership, whose primary focus is to develop a commercially vibrant power market in the country.2.2 The first respondent-Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (Gujarat Energy Development Corporation Ltd.) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a s...
Tag this Judgment!