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 : (2008)2GLR1267
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.1. Heard learned counsel Shri. Raval for the petitioner. Rule. Shri. Makwana, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for the respondents.2. The petitioner, son of a deceased Government employee died in harness, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 18/4/2007 passed by the respondent denying him compassionate appointment on irrelevant and extraneous considerations and has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ of mandamus or any other order directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate appointment.3. This matter was heard at length on earlier occasion and it was slated for dictation of judgment. In the meantime learned AGP Mr. Makwana was to place on record the updated compilation of Government instructions/resolutions in respect of compassionate appointment. Today Mr. Makwana has completed his exercise of re-constituting the bunch.4. Facts in brief required to be set out in orde...
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!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2008GLH(1)220
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia appearing on behalf of petitioner in both the matters.2. The draft amendment is placed on record in both the matters explaining the delay in filing both the petitions challenging the awards in question.3. Accordingly, draft amendment is allowed with a direction to the petitioner to carry out the same within a period of two week from today. Accordingly, delay in filing both the petitions are condoned int the interest of justice.4. It is necessary to note that in Special Civil Application No. 27731 of 2007, the award passed by Labour Court, Bharuch in Reference (LCB) No. 470 of 1990 dated 21st September 2003 is challenged by petitioner being a State Authority after a period of four years. In Special Civil Application No. 27731 of 2007, the name of respondent - workman is Raj Amarsinh Fulsinh. In Special Civil Application No. 27732 of 2007, the name of respondent - workman is Manilal Ratanji Vasava, where, Labour Court has dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2008GLH(1)598; LC2008(1)165
D.N. Patel, J.1. Rule. Learned Counsel Mr. A.R. Majmudar waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1.2. This Appeal from Order has been preferred against the order dated 24th December,2007 passed by learned In-charge District Judge, Vadodara below Exh-5 application in Regular Civil Suit No. 44 of 2007, whereby without giving notice to defendants, ex-parte, ad-interim relief, has been granted in favour of the plaintiff, in terms of para 29(a) and 29(b) of injunction application-Exh-5 application, preferred in the Suit. These prayers which are granted by ex-parte order, read as under:29(a) pending hearing and final disposal of this suit, the Defendants by themselves, their directors, servants, agents and distributors/exhibitors be restrained by an order of this Hon'ble Court from infringing the Plaintiffs' copyright in the artistic work 'Bal Hanuman' registering under No. A-57127/99, in any manner whatsoever and by reproducing the same or substantial part thereof in an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2008)2GLR1163
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh for petitioners, Mr. Sunit S. Shah, learned GP with Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Ms. Kiran Pandey and Mr. KJ Dwivedi, learned AGPs for the respondent State authority and Mr. Pranav G. Desai, learned Advocate for respondent Baroda Municipal Corporation.2. When these matters are taken up for hearing, learned advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitions involving same and identical question filed by the concerned employees of the respondent corporation but same have not been notified because of the office objections raised by the Registry and he requested before this Court to call for papers of those petitions and accordingly, considering his request, registry of this Court was directed to dispense with the office objections raised by the registry and to send papers of those petitions and therefore, registry has sent papers of Special Civil Application No. 327, 328, 330,331,332,333,334, 336,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2008)3GLR2049; 2008GLH(1)298
K.M. Thaker, J.1. Mr. R.A. Patel, advocate for petitioner, made request for leave to amend. Granted. Accordingly, para: 1 of petition is amended.2. The petitioners have preferred present petition against the order passed by the Mamlatdar: ALT being order dated 26.11.1990 and order dated 8.9.1992 passed by the Deputy Collector as well as order dated 13.2.1997 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The petitioners have also challenged order dated 22.4.1997 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in review application preferred by the petitioners against the earlier order dated 13.2.1997.3. The only ground, on which the petitioners have preferred present petition against the aforesaid orders is that the action initiated by the respondents against the action of petitioner No. 2 of family arrangement, was initiated after inordinate delay of almost 9 years and, therefore, the said action and subsequent actions are hit by the vice of delay and, therefore, are unsustainable.4. The facts, which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2009ACJ1733; 2008GLH(1)616; (2008)2GLR1357
D.H. Waghela, J.1. These appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) are preferred by two insurance companies from the awards made under Section 163A of the Act and, having involved common question of law, they are disposed by this common judgment after hearing arguments in extenso at the admission stage.2. In First Appeal No. 2042 of 2007, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has challenged the award in MACP No. 340 of 2001 awarding compensation of Rs. 4,62,839/- with cost and interest @ 7.5% p.a. to the heirs of deceased P.Balakrishna, aged 29, who met with an accident on 19.11.2000 at 07.30 p.m. on Gandhidham-Kandla Highway while driving the scooter which slipped due to some obstruction on the road and who succumbed to his injuries on 23.11.2000. The Claims Tribunal turned down the plea of the insurance company that the deceased himself was a tortfeaser and, due to his own negligence, he sustained injuries and died even as the owner of the vehicle and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2008GLH(1)328; (2008)1GLR821
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Leave to amend to change the designation of petitioner No. 2 Chief District Health Officer, Gandhinagar District Panchayat, Gandhinagar.2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. HS Munshaw for the petitioners.3. Through this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging ex parte award made by the labour Court, Kalol in Reference No. 435 of 1999 dated 29.1.2007 wherein the labour court has granted reinstatement with of the respondent workman on his original post with full back wages and costs of Rs. 1000.00. In the said reference, statement of claim was filed by the respondent on 18.1.2000. Date of termination as mentioned is 7th June, 1989. Date of joining is 1st June, 1988. In reference, the labour court had issued notice to the petitioner vide Exh. 3 which was served on the petitioner but no one had remained present on behalf of the petitioner before the labour court in response to the notice issued by the labour court and, thereafter,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2008(118)FLR285]; 2008GLH(1)352; (2008)2GLR1393
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Saurabh Mehta for Nanavati & Nanavati on behalf of the petitioner, learned AGP Ms. Kiran Pandey for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and learned advocate Mr. Chari for respondent No. 2.2. In the present petition, the petitioner has made prayer in Para.9(A), (B), (C) and (D) which is quoted as under:A. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned recovery notice dated 29.5.06 issued by the respondent No. 2 - Mamlatdar, Alien Recovery, Ahmedabad, as well as communication dated 2.9.2006 to Deputy Labour Commissioner at Annexure-A to the petition as being illegal, arbitrary, without authority and without jurisdiction.B. Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant interim relief, staying implementation and execution of the impugned recovery notice date...
Tag this Judgment!