Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2008Guj20; (2008)1GLR158
ORDERAkshay H. Mehta, J.1. This Court issued Rule on the petition on 24-8-2007. Mr. Sunit Shah, Ld. GP waived service of rule for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. A.R. Thakkar, learned advocate waived service of rule for respondents Nos. 3 to 6. At the request of the learned advocates for the parties and looking to the urgency, the petition was taken up for final hearing on 24-8-2007 itself. The hearing got concluded on 29-8-2007, Thereafter, the petition has been adjourned to 3-9-2007 for pronouncement of the judgment. Now it is being disposed of by this CAV judgment.2. The petitioners herein seek to challenge the proceedings initiated against them under the provisions of The Gujarat Provision for Disqualification of Members of Local Authorities for Defendant Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and The Gujarat Provision for Disqualification of Members of Local Authorities for Defection Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') as also The Gujarat Provision for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2008GLH(1)34
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Rule. Service of rule is waived by learned Advocate Mr. Nayak on behalf of M/s. Trivedi & Gupta for the original petitioner. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and with consent of both the learned Advocates, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt for the applicants original respondents - workmen and Mr. Nayak, learned Advocate for M/s. Trivedi & Gupta for the present opponents-original petitioners-employer.3. In the main matter being Special Civil Application NO. 8063 of 2004, the petitioners are challenging the award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (IT) NO. 160 of 1991 dated 29th November, 2003 wherein the Industrial Tribunal Rajkot has partly allowed reference and granted reinstatement in favour of the present applicants being Safai Kamdar on the basis of original seniority of the year 1982 and not granted any amount of back wages for an interim period. Services of the present applicants were te...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)2GLR1202
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner Textile Labour Union has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and challenged the impugned order dated 22-06-2005 (Annexure-L) passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (for short, SAAIFR) as well as the impugned order dated 30-10-2002 (Annexure-A) passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (for short, SBIFR), and prayed that respondent No. 2 Mafatlal Industries Limited be directed to pay salary to the members of the petitioner Union on the basis of current D.A. as applicable to the industry and respondent No. 2 be further directed to pay the difference of salary wef 30-11-2002 on the basis of prevalent D.A. index. Thereafter, by way of an amendment, prayer Clause 12 (BB) was amended in the petition with the permission of the Court, which reads as under:12 (BB) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorary or writ of mandam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)3GLR2597
C.K. Buch, J.1. Present Appeal is arising out of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar, on 23rd March, 1995, in Summary (Criminal Case) No. 11 of 1987 whereby the present appellant-accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and was sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for each offence. The learned Judge has ordered that all the sentenced should run concurrently. The date of commission of offence is 9th December, 1986.2. It is the case of the prosecution that while inspecting the shop of the appellant-accused, the Inspecting Officer found six irregularities and illegalities. However, on plain reading of those irregularities mentioned in the complaint, it appears that out of six irregularities, four irregularit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)2GLR1697
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. These two Criminal Appeals under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short) are directed against the judgment and order dated 26.2.2002 rendered in Sessions Case No. 283 of 1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 22, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad by which the appellants (A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-5) of both these appeals have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years for the offence under Section 304B IPC, R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 500/- i.d., to undergo R.I. for a further period of 15 days for the offence under Section 498A IPC and R.I. for six months and fine of Rs. 500/- i.d., to undergo R.I. for a further period of 15 days for the offence under Section 4 of the Act. It is also ordered that all the sentences impose...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1976]46CompCas279(Guj); (1976)GLR592
D.A. Desai, J.1. This summons is a sequel to a very unfortunate tragedy of an unprecedented character that occurred in the process of reviving, rejuvenating and resuscitating a sick production unit in this city. Hathising . ( in liquidation), hereinafter referred to as 'the company', was ordered to be wound up way back by an order made in 16th August, 1965, in Company Petition No. 9 of 1965. Since then, the spinning unit of the company remained idle and in the process got deteriorated over a period of a decade. Number of litigations by persons having rival interests in the company flooded the court. It was somewhere in 1972 that there appeared on the scene late Shri Chhotalal Devchand Shah who came forth with a scheme of compromise and arrangement through Shri Rajendrakumar Maneklal field Company Application No. 43 of 1972, under section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, praying for directions for convening the meetings of the equity shareholders and different kinds of creditors and o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)1GLR764(GJ)
M.R. Shah, J.1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners heirs and legal representatives of deceased Ambalal Fakirchand - mortgagee in possession, who also claimed to be tenant under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as S 'the Act' for convenience) have challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dtd. 27/3/1990 in Revision Application No. TEN/BA/247 of 1982 in allowing the said revision application and quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) (Appeals), Ahmedabad dtd. 21/10/1981 in Tenancy Appeal No. 414/111/9/75 and restoring the order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal ('ALT' for short), Sanand in Tenancy Case No. 2020 of 1975.2. The dispute is with regard to the land bearing Survey No. 2033 admeasuring 3 Acres and 27 Gunthas of land situated at village Sanan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2008(117)FLR685]; (2008)1GLR568
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mrs. Yogini V. Parikh appearing on behalf of applicant-original petitioner-Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Botad and learned Advocate Mr. T.R. Mishra appearing on behalf of opponent-original respondent-workman.2.The main Special Civil Application No. 21849 of 2006 is filed by present applicant-original petitioner-Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Botad (hereinafter referred to as 'A.P.M.C.') challenging the award passed by Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (L.C.B.) No. 11 of 2001 dated 9th March, 2006, wherein, Labour Court, Bhavnagar has granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 50% back wages and consequential service benefits w.e.f. 19th April, 2000 with cost of Rs. 500/-.3. Initially, this Court has issued notice on 12th October, 2006, thereafter, 'Rule' is issued by this Court on 2nd February, 2007 and also issued ad-interim relief, for back wages is concerned, on condition that the original petitioner-A.P.M.C. wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2008)1GLR634
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.1. The petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged inter alia the order of District Development Officer passed on 20-9-1984 suspending Resolution No. 40 dated 17-7-1984 passed by the then Lunawada Nagar Panchayat (now Lunawada Borough) promoting and appointing the petitioner from the post of Accountant to the post of Secretary w.e.f. 17-7-1984 on retirement of the then Secretary on his attaining the age of superannuation; on the ground that the Resolution No. 40 passed by Lunawada Nagar Panchayat was not in consonance with the instructions of the State contained in communication dated 19-3-1983. The Resolution was suspended under Section 294 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1961.2. The facts in brief deserve to be set out as under:The petitioner who was an employee of Lunawada Nagar Panchayat had originally been appointed as Naka Karkoon on 6-5-1957. Thereafter, he was promoted as Accountant in 1972. Petitioner was given charge of the post o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2007(115)FLR1069]
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. K.R. Dave for petitioner and Mr. Sunit Shah, learned Government Pleader with Ms. Sandhya Natani, Mr. Vinay Pandya, Mr. Amit Patel and Mr. Hukum Singh, Asstt. GPs for Respondent State Authority in this group of petitions.2. In this group of petitions, petitioner, Morbi Nagarpalika has challenged the order passed by Labour Court, Rajkot in recovery applications filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('ID Act, 1947' for short) dated 23.2.2007 wherein the Labour Court has determined amount of Rs. 6000.00 (Rupees six thousand only) payable to each workman by the opponent Nagarpalika under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act, 1947 by ordering the Nagarpalika to pay the said amount to each workman within thirty days from the date of receipt of said order. No order was made as to costs by the Labour Court.3. Learned Advocate Mr. K.R. Dave appearing for petitioners in this group of petitions raised certain questions while challeng...
Tag this Judgment!