Court : Gujarat
1. The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the order impugned dated 14.01.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in Criminal Appeal No.164 of 2010 by which the prayer for bail made by the petitioner-juvenile was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Hazaribag on 09.12.2010 was affirmed in Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 70 of 2010, corresponding to G.R.No. 2980 of 2010 and the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner was arrested but he was declared juvenile after determination of his age by the Juvenile Justice Board on 18.12.2010. The F.I.R. was lodged against as many as 11 named accused persons including the petitioner-juvenile for the alleged offence under Sections 376/354/306/509/511 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 66A/66B/67A/67B and 72 of the the Information and Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.2. Learned Counsel Mr. Nilesh Kumar submitted that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2006)IILLJ938Guj
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Payment of Gratuity Authority on 24.10.1997 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity on 28.10.1998.2. This Court has admitted the petition and rule was issued on 25.10.1999.3. The case of the petitioner was that the petitioner had joined the respondent No. 3 Factory in the year 1962 and left the said organization on 31.07.1995 by tendering his resignation. The petitioner was employed as Works Manager of a factory at Surat owned by the respondent Company, registered office of which is at Bombay. The petitioner has applied for gratuity vide his application dated 02.09.1995. Since the respondent Company has not taken any concrete action except for giving assurances, the petitioner has preferred an application dated 25.02.1997 before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1981ACJ207; AIR1980Guj172; (1979)2GLR371
Nanavatl, J. 1. The question of law, and of some importance, which arises in these revision applications for our consideration is whether a consignor who is not an owner of a part of the goods consigned by him (whom we shall call 'consignor-non-owner' for the sake of convenience) along with his own goods and under the same parcel way bill, is competent to file a suit for recovery of compensation from the Railway administration for loss, destruction, deterioration or damage caused to the goods as a result of delay or detention on the part of the Railway administration in their carriage? This question being common ~to all these revision applications, they are all disposed of together by this common judgment.2. The acts in all these cases are similar; and, therefore, we will refer to the representative facts of Civil Revision Application No. 272 of 1977 wily. It arises out of Regular Civil Suit No. 3963 of 1970 filed in the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad, by M/s.Tolaram, Hariram and K. A....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1962)3GLR33
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Gujarat against the acquittal of the respondent who was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 34 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act for having contravened Section 18(2) of the same Act in that he did not send copies of the accounts in respect of three money-lending transactions dated 24-12-57 27 and 30-12-57 relating to loans advanced by him to Kisnad Group Co-operative Multi-purpose Society. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Broach who tried the case acquitted the respondent on the ground that a loan to a Co-operative society was not included in the definition of loan contained in Section 2(9) of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act. On this ground he acquitted the respondent although according to the Magistrate all the facts about the advancing of the loans were admitted by the respondent who was accused.2. In appeal it is contended by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State that the view taken...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Cav Judgment M.R. Shah 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of petitions, they are heard, decided and disposed of by this common judgement and order. 2. Special Civil Application No. 1623 of 2015 : By way of Special Civil Application No.1623 of 2015 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner -assessee M/s.Tata Teleservices has prayed for the following reliefs : ” (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to declare the impugned Summons dated 9/12/2014, impugned Notices dated 18/12/2014 and impugned Letters dated 18/12/2014, 29/12/2014 and 12/1/2015 issued by the respondent No. 2 are barred by limitation and be pleased to strike down the same as being wholly without jurisdiction; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction of like nature, to call for, examine the records in relation to and quash the impugned Summons dated 9/12.2014, impugned Notices dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Akil Kureshi, J. 1. These petitions arise in common background. They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, we may refer to the facts arising in SCA No. 17307 of 2015. 2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. For the Assessment Year 2011-12, the petitioner filed return of income on 17.10.2011 declaring nil income. Such return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) and thus accepted without any scrutiny. The Assessing Officer later on issued impugned notice dated 02.03.2015 under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment of the petitioner for the said Assessment Year 2011-12. He supplied to the petitioner the reasons recorded for issuing such notice, which read as under: ” "In this case, on verification of records, it is found that the Assessee is a Private Ltd. Company engaged in the business of Manufacturing of Ceramic Tiles. On the basis of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: 1. Draft amendment is granted. The petitioner, by way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has approached this Court with following prayers. (A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus and / or any other appropriate Writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 04.03.2015 issued by the present respondent no.2 at Annexure-L to this petition. (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the Summons dated 08102012 issued by the present respondent no.2 Authority under the Act, 1952 by holding and declaring that the proceeding initiated under Section 7B of the Act, 1952 against the petitioner Company is without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of law. (C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceedings in c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Cav Judgment: 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 30.03.2015 passed below Exhibit:6 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhavnagar in the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.124 of 2014, by which, the learned Judge was pleased to grant interim maintenance in favour of the stepdaughter for an amount of Rs.3,000/to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent No.2, who is the grandfather of the stepdaughter of the petitioner. 2. An interesting question of law arises in this petition. Whether a minor stepdaughter is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code') from her stepmother on the demise of the natural father of the stepdaughter. 3. The facts giving rise to filing of this petition may be summarized as under: 3.1. The son of the respondent No.2 herein, namely, Prakashkumar Sarvaiya married with one As...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: N.V. Anjaria, J. 1. Whether Rule 7(1)C(4) of Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Courses (Regulation of Admission and Payment of Fees) (Amendment) Rule, 2015, extracted hereinbelow in its material part, stand valid on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution, and whether it has in its operation, a rational nexus with the objects sought to be achieved thereby, are the forefront questions posed for consideration in the present petition. 7 Admissions A B C Non-resident Indian Seats (4) Admission on the Non-Resident Indian seats shall be given by the management of the respective Professional Medical Educational College or Institution on the basis of inter-se merit list of the candidates (total theory marks obtained in Physics, Chemistry an Biology subject only), who have applied for admission against the Non-Resident Indian Seats in the following manner, namely:- (i) The Candidate who is Non-Resident Indian as also the candidate whose parents and in the absenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: 1. By the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders at Annexure-A whereby the petitioner is held to be disqualified to continue as member of Tapodi Gram Panchayat on the ground that the petitioner has more than two children. 2. It appears that the petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 2.3.2013 by respondent No.4 “ Taluka Development Officer stating that the petitioner has six children and his last child named Darbar Lakhubha was born on 20.7.2009 on account of which he incurred disqualification under section 32 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 ( the Act ?) to continue as member of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice mainly stating that out of six children, 5 children were born out of the wedlock with his first wife named Maniben who died on 30.3.2005 which was prior to the Amending Act, 2005 came into force and, thereafter, only one child was born o...
Tag this Judgment!