Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)2GLR1150
H.N. Devani, J.1. By this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 4th August, 2008 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the petition filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 22nd August, 2007 passed by the District Development Officer, Ahmedabad in exercise of powers under Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 ('the Act') whereby the appellant was removed from the office of Sarpanch of village Dholera, which order was confirmed by the Additional Development Commissioner by his order dated 25th September, 2007.2. The appellant was elected to the office of Sarpanch of Dholera Gram Panchayat on 12th December, 2007 (sic.) and took charge on 17th January, 2007. Within a short period of about five months, the District Development Officer issued a show-cause notice dated 20th June, 2007 against the appellant calling upon her to show-cause as to why she should not be removed from the office of Sarpan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2009Guj100
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. The question, we have, been called upon to decide on a reference made by the learned Single Judge, is 'whether the time-limit of one week provided in Sub-section (3A) of Section 13 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Securitisation Act') for communicating the non-acceptance of the representation/objections made by the borrower in response to a notice issue under Sub-section (2) of Section 13, is mandatory or directory?2. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 4045 of 2007 took the view that the same is a mandatory requirement, and non-compliance of that mandatory requirement within one week of the receipt of the representation/objections filed by the borrower would vitiate the proceedings initiated by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act. When this case came up for hearing before another Judge, learned Judge took...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)2GLR1421
Mohit S. Shah, J.1. Rule. Mr. Nikunt Raval, learned A.G.P. waives service of rule for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Nilay Anjaria waives service of rule for respondent No. 2 - G.I.D.C, Mehsana.In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is taken up for final disposal today.2. The petitioners claim to be the heirs of Patel Narottambhai Joitaram. It appears that upon acquisition of the land in question in Patan District, Patel Narottambhai Joitaram filed Land Acquisition Reference No. 82 of 2002 before the District Court, Patan. During pendency of the said Reference, Patel Narottambhai Joitaram expired, as is being stated by the petitioner. However, the petitioners did not make any application for being brought on the record of the Reference Case. The Reference Court, therefore, disposed of the said Reference along with the Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 66 to 91 of 2002 and other companion matters by judgment and award dated 21-2-2007 by which the amount of compensation was enh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)2GLR1132
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati on behalf of United Insurance Company-appellant and learned advocate Mr. Paresh Darji for the respondents-claimants.2. The appellant-Insurance Company challenged award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (R) at Ahmedabad Exh.-118 in MACP No. 1795 of 1990, 1796 of 1990, 1797 of 1990, 1798 of 1990, 1799 of 1990, 1808 of 1990 and 1809 of 1990 dated 31/7/2008. The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation in each case with 8.5 percent interest in favour of respondent-claimants.3. Learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati raised contention that accident occurred on 11/9/1990 prior to amendment in Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act dated 14/11/1994. Therefore, according to his submission, considering an amended Section 147, in goods vehicle any person is not permitted to travel either with goods or without goods and for the same Insurance Company is not liable. He submitted that Claims Tribunal has committed error in con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)2GLR1399
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the opinion of the Review Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee' formed under the Prevention of Terrorism (Repeal) Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Repeal Act'). In the petition, the following prayers were made:(a) Issue a writ or order or direction of an appropriate nature quashing the Notification dated 4-11-2004 establishing Review Committee itself, being Annexure-A to the writ petition;(b) Issue a writ or order or direction of an appropriate nature quashing the report dated 16-5-2005 passed by the Review Committee in F.I.R. 1-9 of 2002 registered with Godhara Railway Police Station being Annexure-B to the writ petition.1.2. Out of the prayers made, first prayer has been given up. The case is argued to seek the remaining relief.1.3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.B. Vakil started his arguments and submitted that he shall be addressing the Court on the following points including others...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2009CriLJ3154; (2009)3GLR2148
ORDERD.H. Waghela, J.1. The petitioners have exclusively invoked Article 226 of the Constitution to pray for quashing the complaint which is registered as FIR I-C.R. No. 92 of 2008 at Jaipur City (South) Mahila Thana, Rajasthan. The complaint is made for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the complainant's husband and his parents and it alleges series of events occurring at several places in Gujarat, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.2. Since the preliminary issue of territorial jurisdiction of this Court is required to be addressed first, before assuming jurisdiction and issuing process, the facts relevant for that purpose may be culled out and summarized. According to the petition, petitioner No. 1, the husband, was selected for Indian Administrative Services (IAS) of Gujarat Cadre in the year 2004 and respondent No. 1-wife, the original complainant, was selected for IAS of Jammu & Kashmir Cadre in the year 2005. They married at...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)2GLR1158
D.A. Mehta, J.1 This group of appeals has been preferred challenging the judgment and order dated 09.07.2007 of the learned Single Judge (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company Court') dismissing Company Application No. 489 of 2006 filed by the appellant of Appeal No. 156 of 2007, and similar other matters.2. It is an accepted position that the facts stated in Appeal No. 156 of 2007 are similar to those involved in other appeals and the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties have treated O.J. Appeal No. 156 of 2007 as the principal appeal. Hence, hereinafter reference to the facts shall be from the record of O.J. Appeal No. 156 of 2007, unless specifically mentioned otherwise. The appellant has formulated the following 19 questions of law, stated to be arising out of the judgment of the Company Court:Questions of Law: (i) Whether the Company Court has erred in adopting a completely erroneous procedure in the conduct of this application, particularly in impleading the C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)1GLR683; (2009)23VST298(Guj)
Rajesh H. Shukla, J.1. This group of petitions have been filed by the petitioners for the prayers, inter alia, that a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued directing the respondents to make the earlier exemption granted to the petitioners by the certificates issued by respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 available to the petitioners for the purpose of exemption under the provisions of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 at least for the duration as mentioned in the aforesaid certificate (passed under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969), if not for more time.2. It is also prayed that the respondents may be directed to grant exemption to the industry of the petitioners under the provisions of Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 from the date of coming into force of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 on the same terms as exemption has been granted earlier under the provisions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2009Guj123
ORDERK.A. Puj, J.1. The appellants--ori. defendants Nos. 5 to 10 have filed this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mehsanaon 15-3-2007 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 87 of 2005 whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Mehsana has allowed the Appeal filed by the ori. plaintiff and passed a decree for specific performance in favour of the plaintiffs.2. It is the case of the original defendants Nos. 5 to 10 that the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 had filed a Suit for specific performance in respect of an agreement to sell allegedly executed by the defendants Nos. 5 to 10 in favour of the ori. defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and also asked for a specific performance in respect of an agreement to sell executed by original defendants Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiffs. Both the agreements were entered into in respect of the new tenure land and hence the specific performance of agreement to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)2GLR1067
M.R. Shah, J.1. As common question of law and fact arise in these petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. Special Civil Application No. 12327 of 2008 is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Hansoth dated 2-8-2008 below Exh. 73 in Regular Civil Suit No. 33 of 2005 in dismissing the application submitted by the petitioner-original plaintiff to amend the plaint by adding the prayer of possession with respect to the disputed land in question.2.1. Special Civil Application No. 12328 of 2008 is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Hansoth dated 2-8-2008 below Exh. 67 in Regular Civil Suit No. 29 of 2006 in dismissing the application submitted by the petitioner-original plaintiff to amend the plaint by adding the prayer of possession with res...
Tag this Judgment!