Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2009ACJ1861
D.H. Waghela, J.1. The appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act) seeks to challenge order dated 18.06.2007 of M.A.C.T., Bhuj in M.A.C.P. No.556 of 2004 only on the ground that the claim under Section 163A of the Act could not have been allowed in favour of the heirs of the driver of sole vehicle involved in the accident. The appeal was restricted to the liability upto Rs. 2,82,834/- out of the award of Rs. 3,82,834/- (with interest and cost) in view of the fact that, admittedly, compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- was covered by the personal accident insurance of the driver. The facts about which there is no controversy are that, on 05.06.2004, the deceased, driving scooter No. GJ-7-P-5487, dashed with the parapet of a bridge near village Anandsar in Kachchh district. The deceased aged 42 was claimed to be earning Rs. 40,000/- and his parents, widow and children claimed compensation under Section 163A of the Act. The scooter driven by the deceased was own...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1997ACJ1270; (1997)1GLR243
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. A cry for justice of dejected and disheartened, unsuccessful and unfortunate parents, is echoed in this appeal, who lost only young earning son, in a fatal railway accident, on ill-fated day of 18.7.1981 and who also lost the legal battle for compensation for the untimely and premature demise of their beloved only son.A conspectus of few relevant and material facts leading to the rise of this appeal, needs narration, at the outset, which would unfold the untold tragic scenario,2. The appellants are the original plaintiffs, who instituted Special Civil Suit No. 57 of 1983, in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Mehsana, for compensation for the unfortunate and untimely demise of their only earning son, aged about 20, in a cruel railway accident. Deceased Shailesh was travelling in a Delhi Mail train, proceeding from Ahmedabad towards Mehsana, on the ill-fated day as a bona fide passenger.3. The train accident occurred on account of a derailment of train between Dangarva an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2006(111)FLR1097]; (2006)2GLR889; (2006)IIILLJ196Guj
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. Shri D.V.Chauhan (respondent) was a Conductor at Bardoli Depot of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation for short). On 3.5.1990, his duty was on Surat ' Mandvi road. When the bus reached between Karanj and Mandvi, checking squad of Corporation checked the bus. At this time, there were 74 passengers in the bus. It was found that he had collected Rs. 14/- from two passengers and had issued used tickets worth Rs. 6/- with an intention to misappropriate public money. It was also found that to two passengers who were travelling from Surat to Archena, he issued tickets worth Rs. 12/- out of which, tickets worth Rs. 6/- were re-used. To a passenger, who was travelling from Kim Char Rasta to Amalsadhi, after collecting the fare of Rs. 4/-, he issued ticket worth Rs. 6/- which was used in the earlier trip. Some other irregularities were also found during the checking. Therefore, he was found having misappropriated Rs. 28/- by issuing used tickets to six pas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2006]131CompCas410(Guj); (2006)5CompLJ452(Guj); [2006]70SCL407(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. Since common issue is raised by the learned advocates appearing for the workmen with regard to their exclusive right under Section 529-A of the Companies Act, 1956 of satisfaction of their dues prior to the right of any other Creditors either Secured or Unsecured, all these applications are heard together and the said issue is decided by this common judgment and order.2. Company Application Nos. 362 of 2004 and 232 of 2005 are filed by Gujarat Steel Tubes Employees Union and Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha, Ahmedabad. In Company Application No. 362 of 2004, the applicants have sought for the direction to the Official Liquidator of Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited (In Liquidation) to disburse an amount of Rs. 12 Crores realized from the sale of plant and machinery amongst the employees as a part payment towards their legal dues, claim for which is pending with the Official Liquidator. 3. In Company Application No. 232 of 2005, a declaration was sought for from this Court to the effect t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2009ACJ2099; (2007)2GLR1340
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner, namely, The New India Assurance Company Limited has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order rendered by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Kachchh at Bhuj dated 07.05.2005 passed below an application Exh. 84/A in Special Civil Suit No. 10 of 1992.2. The petition was admitted on 15.07.2005 and ad-interim relief in terms of para 9 (C) was granted whereby the order under challenge was stayed.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have instituted Special Civil Suit No. 10 of 1992 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Kachchh at Bhuj on the allegation that late Pratapbhai Thacker, husband of respondent No. 1 Jayshreeben and father of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the averments and allegations that he died in a motor accident which occurred near village Hamirpur on Naliya-Bhuj road on 07.10.1989 at about 11.30 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2009ACJ883; (2008)1GLR225
Akshay H. Mehta, J.1. This group of petitions is filed by New India Assurance Co. Ltd., essentially under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar, dated 24/8/2006, whereby the Tribunal has granted applications of the claimants seeking amendment in the claim petitions. The claimants have filed M.A.C. petitions under the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] before the M.A.C. Tribunal [Main], Bhavnagar for obtaining compensation for the death and/or injuries suffered by the victims of a vehicular accident. These applications have been given in different proceedings, but since the issue involved is common, the Tribunal decided them by passing common order, which is under challenge. Hence the petitions are heard together and now they are disposed of by this common judgment.1.1. The claimants have filed petitions wherein initially they averred that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2010)1GLR321
ORDER119. The plaintiffs are entitled to recover jointly and severally from the National Aviation of Company India Ltd. ('the Airlines' for short) and the Airport Authority of India compensation of Rs. 7,53,000/- (Rupees Seven lacs fifty three thousand only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of deposit/payment. The plaintiffs are also entitled to recover their costs as already determined in the decree of the trial Court in one set, as explained in the preceding para.The defendants shall bear their own costs of the suit as well as of these appeals.120. The Indian Airlines Corporation (now the National Aviation Company of India Ltd.) and the Airport Authority of India are held jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation with interest and costs.121. The amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- paid by the Indian Airline Corporation to the plaintiffs as well as the amount deposited by the Airport Authority before the trial...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)212CTR(Guj)195
1. In these two Petitions along with the Civil Application, the petitioner has challenged the proceedings in consequence of the notices issued under Section 263 and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short `the Act') by the Commissioner of Income Tax for revision of the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act and by the Assessing Officer for reopening the same assessment order. The relevant Assessment Year is 2001-02.2. The petitioner in both these petitions prayed to quash and set aside the notices dated 30.03.2006 and 19.07.2006 issued under Section 148 and 142(1) of the Act and notices dated 17.01.2005 and 17.02.2005 issued under Section 263 of the Act.3. The assessment under Section 143(3) was completed on 10.03.2004. For reopening of this assessment, notice under Section 148 was issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee and notice under Section 263 was issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax for revision of the assessment order passed by the Assess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1961Guj22; (1960)GLR242; (1962)IILLJ194Guj
Desai, C.J. 1. This petition raises a question of some importance affecting the construction of S. 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to be referred to by us hereinafter as 'the Act.' The matter has been argued before us by Mr. S. D. Parekh with ability and discernment and he has made a valiant attempt to persuade us to hold that a decision of the Bombay High Court on the identical question should not be regarded by us as binding on this Court and he has taken his stand on the ground that that decision to which we shall presently turn was delivered per incuriam. 2. The facts may be succinctly stated. The petitioners are a limited company which owns a factory at Jamnagar. Respondent 2 was in the employment of the petitioner-company and he was chargesheeted by the company on 14 September, 1959, and a departmental inquiry was held against him. After the inquiry the employer dismissed respondent 2 from employment. At that time conciliation proceedings were pending before responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1976]105ITR423(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company and it runs a textile mill at Ahmedabad. The respondent is the Income-tax Officer having jurisdiction to asses the petitioner-company under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. During the course of proceedings for assessment to income-tax for assessment year 1964-65, the corresponding previous year being calendar year 1963, the petitioner-company was given an allowance in the sum of Rs. 49,354 by way of development rebate under section 33 on account of its having purchased certain machinery during the relevant previous year. The allowance was made since the petitioner-company fulfilled the conditions laid down in section 34 and more particularly the condition prescribed in section 34(3)(a) which requires that a certain percentage of the amount allowed as development rebate must be credited to a reserve account to be utilised by the assessee during the period of eight years next following for the ...
Tag this Judgment!