Court : Gujarat
J.N. Patel, C.J. This is an application seeking clarification and/or modification of the judgment and order dated August 12, 2011 passed by this Court (Hon’ble Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya and Hon’ble Justice Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti) in CEXA No.1 of 2008. It is the case of the petitioner that it had preferred an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order dated June 15, 2007 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata (hereafter the ‘the Tribunal’) in Excise Appeal bearing No. EDM-641 of 2006 in so far as the Tribunal did not pass any direction for payment of interest in spite of holding that the petitioner was entitled to refund of the sum of Rs. 14.98 crore. The appeal was admitted by this Court on May 5, 2011 for hearing on the substantial question of law as to whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in not passing any direction for payment of interest in fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
J.N. Patel, C.J. This is an application seeking clarification and/or modification of the judgment and order dated August 12, 2011 passed by this Court (Honble Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya and Honble Justice Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti) in CEXA No.1 of 2008. It is the case of the petitioner that it had preferred an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order dated June 15, 2007 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata (hereafter the the Tribunal) in Excise Appeal bearing No. EDM-641 of 2006 in so far as the Tribunal did not pass any direction for payment of interest in spite of holding that the petitioner was entitled to refund of the sum of Rs. 14.98 crore. The appeal was admitted by this Court on May 5, 2011 for hearing on the substantial question of law as to whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in not passing any direction for payment of interest in favour of the appellant in spi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Common C.A.V. Order: Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ. 1. While admitting Letters Patent Appeals being LPA No. 1106/2011, 1107/2011, 1111/2011 and 1116 of 2011 preferred by unsuccessful petitioners of four different Special Civil Applications, a Division Bench of this Court presided over by the then the Chief Justice directed that in view of the importance of the issue involved therein, the matters should be heard by a larger Bench. Consequently, this Bench was constituted for hearing all those four LPAs. 1.1 Subsequently, after taking into consideration the fact that various Special Civil Applications were pending before the learned Single Judge involving the selfsame point, we decided to give opportunity of making submissions to the learned counsel for the petitioners in those Special Civil Applications at the time of hearing of the above four appeals. 2.2 The subject matter of the four LPAs indicated above is the decision of the District Collector, Kutch who issued instructions to the conce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
CAV JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA By way of this writ-petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in the nature of a public interest litigation, the petitioner, a resident of Baroda, claiming to be a public spirited citizen of India and an activist, has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(A) Be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Ministry of Environment and Forests, respondent no.1 herein to revoke Environmental Clearance accorded to M/s. Electrotherm (India) Ltd., respondent no.3 herein, for expansion of its steel plant at Survey No. 325, 326, 339, 344 and 350 / 1 / 2 / Paiki, Milestone No. 310, National Highway No.8-A, Village : Samakhiyali, Taluka : Bhachau, District : Kutch, with immediate effect, till (i) environmental norms, (ii) EIA Notification 1994/2006 and (iii) directions issued by this Hon'ble Court in its judgment order dated 09.12.2004 in Special Civil Application Nos. 14460/2004, 14813/2004 and 14819/2004 are strictly complied with by the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
ORAL JUDGMENT AKIL KURESHI, J. 1. These appeals arise out of a common order passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad on 30.11.1988 passed in C.M.A. No.13/1988, 553/1987 and 884/1988. Such proceedings arose out of an award dated 27.8.1987. 2. Brief facts may be noted from First Appeal No.75/1990. 2.1 This appeal is filed by the State Government and the Executive Engineer, Ahmedabad Irrigation Department. Appellants and the respondents entered into a work contract dated 30.7.1984 for execution of work of part modernisation of Nani Fatewadi Canal. Item no.1 of the work entrusted to the contractors involved excavation. The agreement provided for payment of such work at the rate of Rs.4/- per cubic meter. The agreement also provided for escalation as may be agreed between the parties in case the quantity of such work specified in the agreement exceeded by a margin of more than 30%. Since admittedly the work of excavation specified in item no.1 exceeded by a margin beyo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. This First Appeal is at the instance of the Insurance Company and is directed against an Award dated April 23, 1993, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Junagadh, [“Tribunal”] in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 193 of 1986, by which the Tribunal disposed of the said application for compensation by awarding a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the application till deposit with proportionate costs. 2. Being dissatisfied, the insurer of the offending vehicle has come up with the present Appeal. 3. There is no dispute from the evidence on record that on November 3, 1985, while the victim was traveling on the motorcycle as a pillion rider, due to the negligence on the part of the motorcycle driver, an accident occurred. In the said accident, no other “motor vehicle” within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act was involved. It appears from the materials on record that the owner of the said motorcycle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Akil Kureshi, J. 1. Appellant original-petitioner had filed Special Civil Application No.12295 of 2009 challenging order dated 18.9.09 passed by respondent No.1 herein, Commission of Inquiry presided by Hon'ble Mr Justice G.T.Nanavati ('Commission' for short). The petition came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge by judgment dated 27.11.09. This Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, directed against the said judgment dated 27.11.09. During the pendency of the proceedings, certain further developments took place which have also been brought on record through Civil Application No.12673 of 2010 which application for amendment was allowed by order dated 23.11.2010. Consequential pleadings and prayers have also been added. 2. On 27.2.2002, an incident of setting fire of Sabarmati Express Train near Godhra Railway Station took place resulting into unfortunate death of 58 persons. This unfortunate incident resulted into spread of communal violence in various parts of the State of Gujarat a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA)1. By this Public Interest Litigation, the writ-petitioner has prayed for issue of appropriate writ, order and direction and thereby to quash and set aside the fixed-pay-condition imposed in the policy framed by the Finance Department by Resolutions KhRCh/2002/57/Z.1 dated February 16, 2006 and April 29, 2010 and to direct the respondent to pay minimum of the pay-scale available in the cadre of the employees who are appointed on regular permanent posts with deemed date effect in the interest of justice; or in the alternative, to direct the respondent to pay minimum wage to the fixed pay employees with corresponding effect of 6th Pay Commission with deemed date effect, i.e. January, 2006 with interest at 12%, in the interest of justice. The writ-petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the decision taken by the State Government dated February 24, 2011 and to direct the State Government to pay minimum wag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Gujarat High Court Case Information System BODY {SCROLLBAR-FACE-COLOR: #d4d0c8; SCROLLBAR-HIGHLIGHT-COLOR: #808080; SCROLLBAR-SHADOW-COLOR: #d4d0c8; SCROLLBAR-ARROW-COLOR: #ffffff; scrollbar-dark-shadow-color: #ffffff} SPAN.searchword { background-color:yellow; } function loadSearchHighlight() { var chkParamC = "txtSearch" if (chkParamC == "txtSearch") { SearchHighlight(); document.searchhi.h.value = searchhi_string; if( location.hash.length > 1 ) location.hash = location.hash; } } Print SCA/11899/201120/20 INTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADSPECIALCIVIL APPLICATION No. 11899 of 2011ForApproval and Signature: HONOURABLETHE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.L.DAVE HONOURABLEMR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA=====================================================1WhetherReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?2Tobe referred to the Reporter or not ?3Whethertheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?4Whetherthis case involves a substantial question of law as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed assailing the method and manner in which powers are exercised by the authority under various provisions of Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (for short Act of 1958) and Bombay Stamp (Determination of Market Value of Property) Rules, 1984 (for short Rules of 1984) and challenges preparation and usage of the Final Annual Statement of Rates 2008 (ASR) (popularly known as Jantri) published and made effective from 1.4.2008 in the State of Gujarat. 2. In para 24 of this petition, the petitioners have prayed to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the Final Annual Statement of Rates, 2008 published and made effective from 1.4.2008 by respondents for the area comprising of Bhuj Taluka, District: Kutch. The petitioners have further prayed that authorities under the provisions of the Act be directed to follow and adhere the statutory provisions under Bombay Stamp Act, 1958...
Tag this Judgment!