Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)2GLR1716
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The learned advocate for the petitioner has sought permission to amend the prayer clause. Permission is granted and he is directed to amend the prayer clause immediately. 2. This petition has been filed with the following prayers, including the amended prayer:28. In the premises aforesaid, the petitioner prays as under:A. That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 12.01.2007 passed by respondent No. 2 and thereupon the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 2 pursuant to and on the basis of application moved by respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 under Section 50A of the B.P.T. Act, a copy whereof figures at Exhibit 'D' to the memorandum of the present petition, and, thereupon, be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondent No. 2 not to take cognizance of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)1GLR865
ORDERH.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 2. The petitioners were appointed by respondents in the post of Female Health Worker for a period of 11 months w.e.f. 4.2.2004 and they remain continued upto 6.1.2007. Last order (Annexure-Q, Page-92) issued by the respondents on 3.2.2006 for a period of 11 months as ad-hoc, Hangami and Kamchalau in favour of petitioners in the scale of Rs. 3050-4590. The condition incorporated in the order dated 3.2.2006 is that service of the petitioners can be terminated at any time without issuing notice to the petitioners. The petitioners have to give an undertaking before the authority in a prescribed proforma that their service is ad-hoc and Hangami and the service can be terminated without issuing notice to the petitioners by the respondents. The duration of service is for a fixed period of 11 months being a contractual appointment. This Court has passed the order in aforesaid group of petitions on 3.1.2007...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2008GLH(1)22; (2008)1GLR483
ORDERY.R. Meena, C.J.1. Three Civil Applications have been filed in Misc. Civil Application No. 2706 of 2006 in Special Civil Application No. 15239 of 2006. The main petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 15239 of 2006 was filed by one Shri Nirav Vinodchandra Shah, an Advocate by profession under Article 226 of the Constitution of India branding the said writ petition as Public Interest Litigation (SPIL' for short) invoking fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In the above petition, it was mainly contended that the petitioner is one of the residents of Vasana village of city of Ahmedabad and holding property in Vasana village. According to him, it is personal Inam village as per record of rights and by way of public interest litigation, the petitioner wanted to draw the attention of this Court against arbitrariness, high-handedness and illegality of the respondents whereby the claim of the property viz. the entire Vasana village viz. Survey No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)3GLR2449
R.S. Garg, J.1. Present writ application has been filed by National Builders, a partnership firm, which is carrying on business of construction etc. The petition originally filed as on 20.11.91 prayed for the following reliefs:[A] to command the Government of Gujarat to refund to the petitioners the amount of Rs. 62,98,231/- recovered from the petitioners as royalty on minor minerals excavated and removed by the the petitioners from the land bearing survey Nos. 4 and 5 of village Nani Khavadi District Jamnagar with interest at 21% per annum from the respective dates of recoveries of the amounts till payment.[B] to restrain pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition the Government of Gujarat, its officers and servants including the 4th respondent from demanding or recovering from the petitioners any amount of royalty on any minor mineral excavated and removed by the petitioners from the lands bearing survey Nos. 4 and 5 of village Nani Khavadi, District Jamnagar or any amou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2008GLH(1)1; (2008)1GLR441
C.K. Buch, J.1. By way of preferring the present Civil Application, the applicants have prayed that the delay in filing the Misc. Civil Application (Stamp) No. 301 of 2007 in Special Civil Application No. 20628 of 2005 for reviewing the order dated 11th October, 2005 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 20628 of 2005, may be condoned on the grounds mentioned in the application in the interest of justice.2. The said substantive petition i.e., Special Civil Application No. 20628 of 2005 has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11th October, 2005, which is sought to be reviewed by way of captioned Misc. Civil Application for review. The said petition was preferred by the State of Gujarat and other two officers of the State serving at District Banaskantha; and it was mainly prayed that:(B) Be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of mandamus or order/direction or writ in the nature of appropriate writ and be pleased to call for the records an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1982]51STC88(Guj)
Mehta, J.1. At the instance of the assessee in Sales Tax Reference No. 12 of 1978, the following question is referred to us for our opinion under section 69(1) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gujarat Act' for the sale of brevity) : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that tarpaulins are not prepared from cotton fabrics or textile fabrics, and therefore, their sales amounting to Rs. 31,775 are not covered by entry 18(a) of Schedule II, Part A, to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, as contended by the applicant but are covered by entry 13 of Schedule III to the said Act as held by the sales tax authorities ?' 2. The question arises in the following circumstances : The assessment year with which we are concerned in this reference is from 6th May, 1970, to 31st March, 1971. The assessee is a dealer reselling cotton canvas cloth, hosiery, rain coats, eyelets, tarpaulins, etc. In the course of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2008GLH(1)556; (2008)1GLR884
Anant S. Dave, J.1. Rule.2. Learned Advocates appearing for the Respondents waive service of Rule in all these writ petitions.3. All these writ petitions involve common question of law and submissions made by the learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners as well as respondents are almost similar in the context of the subject-matter of the petition, all the writ petitions are decided finally by common order as agreed by all concern.4. Before dealing with factual aspects, considering the nature of controversies about powers of competent authority under the Act to correct or cancel entry recorded in the register of Births and Deaths and to what extent correction and cancellation can be made in the said register, it is necessary to refer to statutory provisions of the Act, Rules and also guidelines framed by the respective Government in this regard.All the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India involves mainly three different statutes namely Registration of Bir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2008(116)FLR957]; (2007)3GLR2588; (2008)ILLJ1025Guj
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. Challenge in the instant intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is to the judgment and order dated 26.12.2003 rendered in Special Civil Application No. 17984 of 2003 by the learned Single Judge of this Court by which the prayers to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 4.9.2003 issued by respondent No. 1 - State of Gujarat and to quash the decision of respondent No. 1 not to refer the industrial dispute between the appellants and the respondent No. 3 _ Reliance Industries Limited ('RIL' for short) in Conciliation Case No. 111 of 2001 to the industrial forum and also to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondent No. 1 to make a reference to the industrial forum of the industrial dispute raised by the appellants against the RIL which is the subject matter of Conciliation Case No. 111 of 2001, have b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1979]117ITR908(Guj)
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. Since the facts giving rise to both these references are the same and the point of law arising in both the matters is the same, we will dispose of both these matters by our common judgment. As a matter of fact, in the matter out of which Income-tax Reference No. 257 arises, the Tribunal followed its own earlier decision in the matter out of which Income-tax Reference No. 43 of 1976 arises and, hence, it would be convenient to dispose of both the matters by a common judgment. The assessee in Income-tax Reference No. 257 is the wife of the assessee in Income-tax Reference No. 43 of 1976. The assessment years under consideration are 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71. The assessee in Reference No. 43 of 1976 was the adopted son of the Maharaja of Porbandar. During each of the relevant previous years relevant to the assessment years under consideration, the assessee received different sums from his adoptive father, the Maharaja of Porbandar. He received Rs. 24,000 in each of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2008)2GLR1048
D.N. Patel, J.1. This Appeal from Order has been preferred by original defendant No. 2 (lessee of a perpetual lease) against the order dated 15th October,2007 below Notice of Motion Application Exh-52 in Regular Civil Suit No. 5110 of 1992 passed by City Civil Court at Ahmedabad, whereby though transfer of suit property is allowed by Clause 6 of perpetual and permanent lease, defendant No. 2 has been directed not to transfer the suit property to third party till final disposal of the Suit, filed mainly for the reason that rent is not paid. In fact, rent is already deposited by appellant before Trial Court, with interest and cost. Thus, Civil Suit is a suit for forfeiture for non-payment of rent. 2. Facts of the case:2.1 It appears from the facts of the case that a lease deed has been entered into between the original plaintiff and defendant No. 1 on 4th February,1955, for the suit property, which is assignable, perpetual and permanent lease and the amount of rent fixed was Rs. 9,601/-....
Tag this Judgment!