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 : AIR2007Guj185
M.S. Shah, J1. Rule. Mrs VS Pathak, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Mr Tushar Mehta, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and Mr Harin Raval, learned Counsel for respondent No. 7 waive service of Rule.In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the urgency in the election matters, we have taken up the petition for final disposal today.2. The Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance issued order dated 11.5.2007 fixing the date of election to APMC, Himmatnagar. The detailed election program was thereafter issued on 15.5.2007 with the following dates for various stages of election:1.Date of announcementof elections14.05.20072.Dateon which the Authorised Officer shall issue instructions for preparation of thevoters' list14.05.20072A.Dateof communicating the names of voters to the Authorised Officer [Rule 7(1)]22.05.20073.Preparationof the provisional list of voters [Rule 7(2)]29.05.20074.Thelast date for submitting objections/ applications for a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2008)1GLR346
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. Criminal Confirmation Case No. 7 of 2005 arises pursuant to submission of the proceedings of Sessions Case Nos. 11 of 2002 and 18 of 2003 made under Section 366(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, District Kachchh at Bhuj, who, by his judgment and order dated 14-10-2005, has sentenced respondent-Shahnawaz Abdulgafur Bhatti, the accused of Sessions Case No. 18 of 2003, ('the accused' for short) to death for commission of offence punishable under Section 121 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C for short) whereas Criminal Appeal No. 2317 of 2005 filed under Section 374(2) of the Code by the accused Shahnawaz Abdulgafur Bhatti from the jail is also directed against the judgment and order dated 14-10-2005 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, District Kachchh at Bhuj, in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2003 by which the appellant/ accu...
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)1GLR544
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Narmada Project Unit-12, Bharuch and Executive Engineer, Narmada Yojna Naher Division No. 2/3, Karjan, Dist. Baroda appellants herein-original opponents have filed these appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgment and award dated 24-2-2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Bharuch in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 1414 to 1419 of 1997, Main Case No. 1414 of 1997. By the impugned judgment, learned Judge has pleased to partly allow the reference applications for proportionate cost. The learned Judge has held that the applicants are entitled to receive market price on their acquired land at the rate of Rs. 36-50 per sq.mtr. as additional amount of compensation in Compensation Case No. 13 of 1995 over and above compensation of Rs. 4-17 per sq.mtrs. which was awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, that means the learned Judge awarded in all Rs. 40-67 ps. per sq.mtrs. The learned Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2008]142CompCas562(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated July 25, 2007, of the learned company judge in Official Liquidator Report No. 105 of 2007 in Company Petition No. 140 of 2006.2. M/s. Superior Sox Ltd. was ordered to be wound up by the company court by judgment dated November 13, 2006, in Company Petition No. 140 of 2006. This company petition arose from the opinion dated June 13, 2006, recorded by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('the B1FR') under Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as 'the SICA') opining that it was just, equitable and in public interest that the company was not likely to become viable in future and hence M/s. Superior Sox Ltd. should be wound up. This opinion was recorded after observing that the promoters of the company were not serious in rehabilitating the company nor were they resourceful enough to mobilize the funds required for that purpose. The ...
Tag this Judgment!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 : (2008)1GLR409
Akshay H. Mehta, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has sought to challenge order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange at New Delhi dated 2-2-2007 below the application given in Appeal No. 121 of 1999. By the said order, the application filed by the petitioner for dispensation of making pre-deposit has been rejected and appeal has been ordered to be listed on 22-5-2007 for hearing. It is stated at the Bar that the appeal is not yet heard.2. The facts, in short, giving rise to the present petition can be stated as under:2.1. The deceased father of the petitioner viz., Shri Ishwardas Bechardas Patel was in the Angadia business as a partner of M/s. Patel Ishwardas Bechardas, a firm having four partners including him. The other three partners were his brothers. On 5-1-1994 a team of Preventive Officers under the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') visited the Mumbai branch of the partnership firm and seized various ...
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!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!