Court : Gujarat
CAV JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA By way of this writ-petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in the nature of a public interest litigation, the petitioner, a resident of Baroda, claiming to be a public spirited citizen of India and an activist, has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(A) Be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Ministry of Environment and Forests, respondent no.1 herein to revoke Environmental Clearance accorded to M/s. Electrotherm (India) Ltd., respondent no.3 herein, for expansion of its steel plant at Survey No. 325, 326, 339, 344 and 350 / 1 / 2 / Paiki, Milestone No. 310, National Highway No.8-A, Village : Samakhiyali, Taluka : Bhachau, District : Kutch, with immediate effect, till (i) environmental norms, (ii) EIA Notification 1994/2006 and (iii) directions issued by this Hon'ble Court in its judgment order dated 09.12.2004 in Special Civil Application Nos. 14460/2004, 14813/2004 and 14819/2004 are strictly complied with by the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Common C.A.V. Order: Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ. 1. While admitting Letters Patent Appeals being LPA No. 1106/2011, 1107/2011, 1111/2011 and 1116 of 2011 preferred by unsuccessful petitioners of four different Special Civil Applications, a Division Bench of this Court presided over by the then the Chief Justice directed that in view of the importance of the issue involved therein, the matters should be heard by a larger Bench. Consequently, this Bench was constituted for hearing all those four LPAs. 1.1 Subsequently, after taking into consideration the fact that various Special Civil Applications were pending before the learned Single Judge involving the selfsame point, we decided to give opportunity of making submissions to the learned counsel for the petitioners in those Special Civil Applications at the time of hearing of the above four appeals. 2.2 The subject matter of the four LPAs indicated above is the decision of the District Collector, Kutch who issued instructions to the conce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
J.N. Patel, C.J. This is an application seeking clarification and/or modification of the judgment and order dated August 12, 2011 passed by this Court (Hon’ble Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya and Hon’ble Justice Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti) in CEXA No.1 of 2008. It is the case of the petitioner that it had preferred an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order dated June 15, 2007 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata (hereafter the ‘the Tribunal’) in Excise Appeal bearing No. EDM-641 of 2006 in so far as the Tribunal did not pass any direction for payment of interest in spite of holding that the petitioner was entitled to refund of the sum of Rs. 14.98 crore. The appeal was admitted by this Court on May 5, 2011 for hearing on the substantial question of law as to whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in not passing any direction for payment of interest in fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
J.N. Patel, C.J. This is an application seeking clarification and/or modification of the judgment and order dated August 12, 2011 passed by this Court (Honble Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya and Honble Justice Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti) in CEXA No.1 of 2008. It is the case of the petitioner that it had preferred an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order dated June 15, 2007 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata (hereafter the the Tribunal) in Excise Appeal bearing No. EDM-641 of 2006 in so far as the Tribunal did not pass any direction for payment of interest in spite of holding that the petitioner was entitled to refund of the sum of Rs. 14.98 crore. The appeal was admitted by this Court on May 5, 2011 for hearing on the substantial question of law as to whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in not passing any direction for payment of interest in favour of the appellant in spi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: (I) Subject and Relief:- 1. The Applicant unions Gujarat Steel Tube Employees Union and Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha (hereinafter referred to as the applicant unions) have taken out Judges Summons dated 17.3.2008 which is registered as Company Application No.264 of 2008 under Section 456 (1) of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking below mentioned relief and directions:- (A) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the official liquidator of M/s. Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. To comply with directions and file his reports as per order of this Hon'ble Court in para 14 of the oral order dated 27th September, 2007 passed in Company Application No.444 of 2007 and allied matters and further be pleased to make the order of final disbursement on the basis of such report. (B).... 1.1 Heard Mr. Sinha, learned advocate for the applicant union and Mr. Hemang Shah, learned Advocate for the other union and Mr. Baxi, learned advocate for some of the workmen concerned in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
The Chief Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya: 1. In this Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-petitioners, two in number, the first one being the elected President of Rajkot Parliament Youth Congress and other, being a Senate Member of Saurashtra University, have prayed for the following reliefs. [A]. Your Lordship be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs directing the Opponent No.2, Saurashtra University to act in accordance to the direction given by Chancellor of the Saurashtra University by its order dated 01st February, 2011 bearing No. G.S.11.2/158/16/2011. [B]. Your Lordship be pleased to issue directions, order or writ in the nature of quo-warranto or any other appropriate writ that the Opponent No.4, Mr. Gajendra Mulshankar Jani holding no requisite academic qualification or experience for the post of Registrar of the Saurashtra University and his appointment for the post of Registrar is illegal and he is not en...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Is the act of Gujarat State Textile Corporation Limited (Wound-up in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in Company Petition No. 205/1996 dated 06.02.1997) of denying the benefits of Third, Fourth and Fifth Pay Commissions to the members of petitioner no.1-Union violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, is the question that has come up for consideration of this Court in the present petition. 2. The Government of Gujarat enacted The Gujarat Closed Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1986 for acquisition and transfer of closed textile undertakings and for ascertainment of right, title and interest of the owners in respect of such undertakings in order to re-organise and re-construct such undertakings into viable units. According to Section 3(1) of the Act, every specified textile undertaking and the right, title and interest of the owner in relation to every such textile undertaking, shall stand transferred and vested absolutely in the State Governm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ. 1. These two Criminal Appeals along with a Criminal Misc. Application filed in one of these two appeals have been referred to a Larger Bench by a Division Bench of this Court [Coram: Ravi R. Tripathi and Paresh Upadhyay, JJ.], vide order dated 27th June 2012 for considering the following issues: (i). Whether an appeal filed by the victim, invoking his right under proviso to section 372 of Cr.P.C, challenging acquittal, or conviction for a lesser offence, or awarding inadequate compensation, is not maintainable, on the ground that the State has filed an appeal against the same order and for the same purpose ? (ii). Whether an appeal filed by the State should not be entertained, on the ground that the appeal preferred by the victim invoking his right under proviso to section 372 of Cr.P.C., against the same order, is admitted by the Court ? (iii). If the victim prefers an appeal before this Court, challenging the acquittal, invoking his right under proviso to se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Common Oral Judgment: Heard learned advocates for the parties. Special Civil Application No. 2074 of 2000 and Special Civil Application No. 1401 of 200 have been interalia containing the challenge to the orders dated 25.8.1999 and 21.10.1999 respectively passed by the authorities under Section 7A as well as Section 7D of The Employees' Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), holding and confirming that the establishment i.e. petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 2074 of 2000 is liable to make contribution equivalent to the cash value of food concession being available to the employees in the canteen run by M/s. Deepak Nitrite Limited Credit Cooperative and Multi purpose Co-operative Society (society). The petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 1401 of 2000 are the employees and office bearers of union and by this petition, they have challenged, as stated hereinabove, the aforesaid two orders and in addition thereto, pr...
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!