Court : Gujarat
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ. 1. By this Public Interest Litigation, the writ-petitioner has prayed for quashing of the Constitution [97th amendment] Act, 2011 introducing part IXB, as ultra vires the Constitution of India. 2. The case made out by the writ-petitioner is that the Constitution [97th amendment] Act, 2011 was passed by the Lok Sabha on 22nd December 2011 and the same was passed by the Rajya Sabha on 28th December 2011. The President of India bestowed assent to that amendment on 12th January 2012 and the said notification was published in the gazette of India of 13th January 2012 and the amendment came into force on 15th February 2012. 2.1 According to the petitioner, the power under Article 368 of the Constitution of India itself is the basic structure of the Constitution of India and the fact that by the impugned constitutional amendment, the procedure prescribed in the article 368(2) of the Constitution, which recognizes the federal structure of the Constitution as one of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1.0. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of Letters Patent Appeals they are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2.0. All these Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are arising out of the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 09.10.2003 passed in Special Civil Application No.12049 of 2001 and other allied matters, by which, the learned Single Judge has negatived the challenge to the Government Resolution dated 21.5.1994 providing for absorption of teaching and non teaching staff by minority institutions declared surplus from other minority institutions and also held that Government Resolution of 1996 providing for addition of clause 64.3 in the Grant in Aid Code would be applicable to aided minority institutions by observing and holding that as the minority institutions are getting grant in aid from the Government they are bound by the same and bound to absorb teaching and non teaching staff ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Cav Judgment: Bhaskar Bhattacharya, C.J. 1. This is a Reference under Section 54[1-A] of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 (Act), which has been made by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, in which this Bench has permitted the respondents no. 2 to 4 to appear as interveners vide order dated September 12, 2012 passed in OJ CA Nos. 227 of 2012 and 273 of 2012. 2. The brief facts of the case leading to the presentation of this Reference may be summed up thus: 2.1 The petitioner needed financial assistance for setting up an Ultra Mega Power Project in the area of Kutch-Bhuj and for that purpose, it secured assistance from few lenders. The lenders, thirteen in number, formed a consortium as a trust and executed a security trustee agreement inter se appointing one banker, viz. the State Bank of India, as a lead trustee, called, the security trustee. The duties of the security trustee are carved out in the said agreement of security trustees. The petitioner executed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ: 1. By this Special Civil Application, the writ-petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring Clause No. 4.1.11 of Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission [Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters] [Third Amendment] Regulations, 2010 [the Regulations], published vide the Notification No. 6/10 dated August 20, 2010, to be inconsistent and ultra vires the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 [the Act] and to quash and set aside the said Clause. The petitioner has also prayed for a declaration that the action of the respondent authorities in directing the petitioner to pay up the dues of M/s. Arunesh Processors Pvt. Ltd. and till then, not to grant the electricity connection to the petitioner is bad, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and for a direction upon the respondent authorities to refund the amount of Rs. 17,16,255/- deposited by the petitioner vide Annexure:J, with interest, with fur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ. 1. These matters have been referred to a Larger Bench by a Division Bench presided over by the then the Chief Justice by order dated 1st August 2011 as Their Lordships were of the view that having regard to the provisions contained in Sections 43 and 45 of the Electricity Act, 2003 [the Act, hereafter], the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of TORRENT POWER vs. SHREEJI COMM. CO-OP. HO. SO. reported in 2006 [3] GLR 1944 requires reconsideration. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of these Letters Patent Appeals are almost identical. However, for the purpose of discussion of the facts, the LPA No. 2240 of 2010 is taken as the lead matter, and the facts may be summed up thus: 2.1 The appellant, Torrent Power Limited, granted electric connection bearing Service No. HT-19 in the name of M/s. New Gujarat Synthetic Mills Co. Limited. The said service was disconnected on 12th September 1986 due to non-payment of electrical energy char...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Common Oral Judgment: Heard learned advocates for the parties. Special Civil Application No. 2074 of 2000 and Special Civil Application No. 1401 of 200 have been interalia containing the challenge to the orders dated 25.8.1999 and 21.10.1999 respectively passed by the authorities under Section 7A as well as Section 7D of The Employees' Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), holding and confirming that the establishment i.e. petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 2074 of 2000 is liable to make contribution equivalent to the cash value of food concession being available to the employees in the canteen run by M/s. Deepak Nitrite Limited Credit Cooperative and Multi purpose Co-operative Society (society). The petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 1401 of 2000 are the employees and office bearers of union and by this petition, they have challenged, as stated hereinabove, the aforesaid two orders and in addition thereto, pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ. 1. These two Criminal Appeals along with a Criminal Misc. Application filed in one of these two appeals have been referred to a Larger Bench by a Division Bench of this Court [Coram: Ravi R. Tripathi and Paresh Upadhyay, JJ.], vide order dated 27th June 2012 for considering the following issues: (i). Whether an appeal filed by the victim, invoking his right under proviso to section 372 of Cr.P.C, challenging acquittal, or conviction for a lesser offence, or awarding inadequate compensation, is not maintainable, on the ground that the State has filed an appeal against the same order and for the same purpose ? (ii). Whether an appeal filed by the State should not be entertained, on the ground that the appeal preferred by the victim invoking his right under proviso to section 372 of Cr.P.C., against the same order, is admitted by the Court ? (iii). If the victim prefers an appeal before this Court, challenging the acquittal, invoking his right under proviso to se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Is the act of Gujarat State Textile Corporation Limited (Wound-up in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in Company Petition No. 205/1996 dated 06.02.1997) of denying the benefits of Third, Fourth and Fifth Pay Commissions to the members of petitioner no.1-Union violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, is the question that has come up for consideration of this Court in the present petition. 2. The Government of Gujarat enacted The Gujarat Closed Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1986 for acquisition and transfer of closed textile undertakings and for ascertainment of right, title and interest of the owners in respect of such undertakings in order to re-organise and re-construct such undertakings into viable units. According to Section 3(1) of the Act, every specified textile undertaking and the right, title and interest of the owner in relation to every such textile undertaking, shall stand transferred and vested absolutely in the State Governm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
The Chief Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya: 1. In this Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-petitioners, two in number, the first one being the elected President of Rajkot Parliament Youth Congress and other, being a Senate Member of Saurashtra University, have prayed for the following reliefs. [A]. Your Lordship be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs directing the Opponent No.2, Saurashtra University to act in accordance to the direction given by Chancellor of the Saurashtra University by its order dated 01st February, 2011 bearing No. G.S.11.2/158/16/2011. [B]. Your Lordship be pleased to issue directions, order or writ in the nature of quo-warranto or any other appropriate writ that the Opponent No.4, Mr. Gajendra Mulshankar Jani holding no requisite academic qualification or experience for the post of Registrar of the Saurashtra University and his appointment for the post of Registrar is illegal and he is not en...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: (I) Subject and Relief:- 1. The Applicant unions Gujarat Steel Tube Employees Union and Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha (hereinafter referred to as the applicant unions) have taken out Judges Summons dated 17.3.2008 which is registered as Company Application No.264 of 2008 under Section 456 (1) of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking below mentioned relief and directions:- (A) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the official liquidator of M/s. Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. To comply with directions and file his reports as per order of this Hon'ble Court in para 14 of the oral order dated 27th September, 2007 passed in Company Application No.444 of 2007 and allied matters and further be pleased to make the order of final disbursement on the basis of such report. (B).... 1.1 Heard Mr. Sinha, learned advocate for the applicant union and Mr. Hemang Shah, learned Advocate for the other union and Mr. Baxi, learned advocate for some of the workmen concerned in the...
Tag this Judgment!