Court : Gujarat
Cav Judgment: Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. 1. This Special Civil Application has been referred to a Larger Bench by a Division Bench consisting of Jayant Patel and Mohinder Pal, JJ. under the following circumstances :- 1.1 The writ-petitioner had filed this Special Civil Application for quashing and setting aside the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act hereafter), dated 30th January, 2008 and the further Notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 29th April 2008 by which , the land of the petitioner bearing original Survey No.25/2 and 25/3 and 25/4 (now final plot No.50) was acquired. 1.2 When the matter was at the final hearing stage before the referring Bench, the said Bench decided to call for the original file from the State-respondent and it appears from the original file of the State Government that after the proposal was received by the Government, there were various correspondences, but the most important aspect was that the State G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 University and Mr. P.S. Champaneri, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2-National Council for Teacher Education. Having regard to the facts of the case and the urgency of the matter, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing today. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following substantive reliefs: 7. In view of the aforesaid premises, the Petitioner most humbly prays that: (A) This Honble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned Resolution No.2(8) passed by the Executive Council of Hemchandracharya Uttar Gujarat University, Respondent No.1 herein and direct Respondent No.1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Akil Kureshi, J. 1. Heard learned advocates for the parties for final disposal of the petition. 2. Petitioner has challenged a notice dated 26th March 2013 issued by the respondent-Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 {"the Act" for short}. 3. Brief facts are as under : The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. For the Assessment year 2008-09, the petitioner filed its return of income on 31st March 2010 declaring total income of Rs. 1.77 Crores [rounded off]. In such return, the petitioner had claimed set-off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation allowance of Rs. 4.26 Crores [rounded off] pertaining to the period between A.Y 1984-85 to A.Y 2007-08 against the petitioner's income from long term capital gains arising during the year under consideration. Such return was taken in scrutiny by the Assessing Officer. He framed assessment on 29th December 2010 assessing the total income of the petitioner at Rs. 13.52 Crores [rounded o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Common Cav Judgment Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ. 1. All these Special Civil Applications were heard analogously as in all these matters, the questions that had arisen for consideration were whether the provisions contained in section 2 (1)(o) of the Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as the Securitisation Act or SARFAESI Act] and clause 2.1 of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India known as Prudential Norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning “ pertaining to Advances are ultra vires the Constitution of India, and, consequently, the actions taken by various Banks concerned under the Securitisation Act are illegal and without authority of law. 2. We, however, propose to treat the Special Civil Application No. 14908 of 2012 as the lead matter. 3. The case made out by the petitioners in SCA No. 14908 of 2012 may be summed up thus: [a]. The petitioners are the b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
J.B. Pardiwala, R. Tripathi, Jayant Patel, M.R. Shah and A.G. Uraizee, JJ. This batch of Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been placed before this Special Bench pursuant to the order passed by the Honble the Chief Justice on a reference made by a Division Bench first in point of time on 13th August 2013 while hearing a Letters Patent Appeal No.596 of 2008 arising from a judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.408 of 1993. It appears that the need to refer the matter to a Larger Bench necessitated since the Referring Bench noticed a conflict between the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Revaben Wd/o Ambalal Motibhai, and others v. Vinubhai Purshottambhai Patel and others, reported in 2013(1) GLH 440, and a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dilavarsinhsinh Khodubha Jadeja v. The State of Gujarat and others, reported in 1995(1) GLH 58. In such circumstances referred to ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ. 1. All these three Special Civil Applications were taken up and heard together as a common question of law is involved in all these matters, viz. whether Section 66(1) (b) of the Factories Act, 1948 [the Act hereafter] and it s proviso are ultra vires the Constitution of India being violative of Articles 14, 15, 16, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. 1.1 In Special Civil Application No. 11533 of 2013, an additional, alternative prayer has been made for a direction upon the State-respondent to issue appropriate notification as provided in the proviso to sub-section (b) of Section 66(1) of the Act enabling the petitioners to permit / employ women employees to work up to 10.00 p.m. 2. The facts stated in Special Civil Application No. 2984 of 2012 may be summarized thus: 2.1 The petitioner is a Public Charitable Trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and is engaged in the activity of upliftment of women and is active...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Cav Judgement 1. The petitions are arising out of the interim orders pending Lavad Suits before the learned Board of Nominee. Since the facts and issues in both the petitions are similar, they are heard and decided together finally at the admission stage with the consent of the learned advocates for the contesting parties. 2. Challenge made in both the petitions is to the orders dated 21.8.2013 passed by the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short), whereby the Tribunal rejected two different revision applications preferred by the petitioners against the interim orders of injunction passed by the learned Board of Nominee in two different Lavad Suits preferred by the respondent No.1- the Co-operative Housing Society against the petitioners. 3. The facts in nutshell need to be referred for the purpose of deciding the petitions are as under:- Respondent No.1 is a registered Co-operative Housing Society. The petitioners who purchased the plot Nos.4 and 1 respectively ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. By presenting this present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant wife has sought to challenge judgment and decree dated 06.08.2011 of learned Additional District Judge, Surat at Vyara in Regular Civil Appeal No.32 of 2008, whereby the First Appellate Court confirm the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dissolving the marriage in a petition filed by the respondent-husband. The decree of divorce was prayed for and came to be passed on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 2. It was on the following substantial question of law formulated by the Court, that the present appeal was admitted: œWhether the lower appellate court was justified in holding that decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 could be granted on the ground of irretrievable break down of marriage?? 3. A profile of facts and events leading to the litigation between the spouses and culminating into the present appeal may be noted with releva...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J: 1. This Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of an employer and is directed against order dated 26th February 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 670 of 2013 by which the learned Single Judge, after passing some direction upon the Industrial Tribunal, refused to interfere with the order impugned. 2. Being dissatisfied, the unsuccessful applicant of the writ-application has come up with the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. In the Special Civil Application No. 670 of 2013 filed by the appellants before us, the following prayers were made: œ(a).Your Lordship be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus order/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.12.2012 passed by the respondent no.1 “ Commissioner of Labour, State of Gujarat (Annexure-A). (b).During the pendency of hearing and final disposa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a debtor of the Union Bank of India, calls in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 17th July 2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, in Miscellaneous Application No.73 of 2012 being Exhibit 1 in exercise of powers under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 by which the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad directed the local police to assist the secured creditor, namely, the Union Bank of India to take over the possession of the secured assets mortgaged by the petitioner at the time of availing of the loan facility. 2. The petitioner also calls in question the legality, validity and propriety of the office order bearing no.A(VI) 40/2012 issued by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad dated 4th February...
Tag this Judgment!