Court : Gujarat
1. In the present petition the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in disqualifying the petitioner for award of contract for transportation of packed LPG Gas Cylinders from their bottling plant at Hariyala. The petitioner has prayed for a writ or direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner eligible for award of the contract for transportation of the packed LPG cylinders and to award such contract to the petitioner in respect of her own dealership.2. The facts leading to the present petition can be shortly stated as under:2.1 The petitioner Jyoti Sanjeev is proprietor of Jyoti Transport as well as Jay Jyoti Gas Agency, both of which are proprietary concerns. The petitioner is an authorised LPG Distributor appointed by the respondents for Ahmedabad(West) territory since 1995 and runs the agency in the name and style of Jyoti Gas Agency.2.2 Respondent No. 1 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited is concededly "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hardik C. Rawal appearing on behalf of petitioner - Divisional Controller, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Divisional Office, Nadiad ('petitioner Corporation' for short).2. In this group of petitions, petitioner has challenged order passed by Controlling Authority, Nadiad in Gratuity Application filed by respondent workman and same has been decided in favour of respondent workman by Controlling Authority with a direction to petitioner Corporation to pay remaining amount of gratuity with interest of delayed payment of gratuity to respondent workman. Being aggrieved by said order passed by Controlling Authority, petitioner Corporation has challenged order passed by Controlling Authority, Nadiad before Appellate Authority and Appellate Authority has also dismissed Appeal filed by petitioner Corporation. Therefore, both orders passed by Controlling Authority as well as Appellate Authority are under challenge in present group of petitions.3. Learned a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The appellant original accused No.1 has preferred this appeal under sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.03.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur, in Special Case No. 33 of 1998, whereby, the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant accused No.1 for the offence under section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 18 (eighteen) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for further three months. Vide the said Judgment, the learned Special Judge has acquitted original accused No.2 from the offences charged against him.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:That the accused No.1 (appellant herein) was discharging his duties as Talati-cum-Mantri in Group Gram Panchayat of village Didarda, Taluka Tharad and the accused No.2 was working as Chowkidar....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Plaintiff is a Company registered in Liberia engaged in the business of supply of bunkers. The defendant-vessel is a Tanzania flagged vessel presently in port and harbour Alang. The plaintiff seeks security from the defendant for a sum of USD 1 million towards security for arbitration in New York arising out of unpaid supply of fuel and bunkers as mentioned in paragraphs 2 to 4 of the plaint.2. It is not in dispute that the claim made in the present suit is about supply of necessaries and no one disputes that it is not 'maritime claim' and the defendant also accepts the same.3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the defendant has raised preliminary objection that the suit is not maintainable in view of the claim made only for security pending arbitration and no claim is preferred for any money decree and reliance is placed on the judgment dated 17^th February 2011 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in O.J. Appeal No.6 of 2011 confirming the decision dated 24.1.2011 of this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. BA Desai with learned advocate Mr. Suthar for learned advocate Mr. NK Majmudar appearing on behalf of petitioner IPCL Employees Association through General Secretary, learned Advocate General Mr. KB Trivedi with learned advocate Mr. KD Gandhi appearing for Nanavati Association for respondent no. 1 on Caveat.2. The present petition was heard by this Court on 2/5/2011. Thereafter, matter was kept reserved for judgment. In this petition, petitioner Association has challenged award passed by Industrial Tribunal no. 1, Baroda exh 26 in reference IT no. 95/2009 dated 7/2/2011. The Industrial Tribunal no. 1, Baroda has accepted settlement arrived between respondent no. 1 Reliance Industries Ltd, respondent no. 2 IPCL Employees Union and respondent no. 3 Petrochemicals Employees Union vide exh 14 and found to be just, proper, fair and reasonable. Therefore, in terms of aforesaid settlement exh 14, award has been passed and disposed of reference in terms of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The present controversy relates to an important question `whether an intra-court appeal (Letters Patent Appeal) under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is maintainable against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the same High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while exercising such power in its criminal jurisdiction'.2. There being conflicting views of two Division Benches of this Court, and some ambiguity whether there can be separate civil and criminal jurisdiction with regard to the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, cases were referred to Larger Bench for its decision.3. The facts giving rise to these appeals in brief are as follows: L.P.A. NO.335/2010: The State of Gujarat preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in Special Criminal Application No. 989 of 2009 before this Court against one Nitinbhai Shantilal Bhagat and another (appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 335 of 2001) challenging the judgement and order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The application on hand has been titled and described by the applicant as "application for review of the judgment and order dated 29.10.2010."2. The applicant is the original petitioner and appellant and present opponents are original respondents.3. The applicant is one of the students of opponent No.2 institute in present application.4. The respondent No.2-institute had, on the charge that the petitioner was involved in act of ragging, imposed certain penalty on the petitioner and other five students, vide circular/order dtd.1.2.20105. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant herein had preferred a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.3669 of 2010 which was rejected by learned single Judge vide order dated 25^th March, 2010. Against the said order rejecting the petition, the petitioner preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.528 of 2010 which was decided by judgment and order dated 29^th October, 2010. As the title of the application suggests, the applicant seeks review of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Present Second Appeal is filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation appellant original defendant posing the substantial questions of law as follows:(1) Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the dispute between the employer and employee when the employee is a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?(2) Whether the Appellate Court is wrong in setting aside the finding given under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the trial Court?(3) Whether the Appellate Court has power to sit over the finding given by the departmental authority under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure?(4) Whether the Appellate Court has power to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case under Order 41 of the C.P.C.?2. The short facts of the case briefly summarized are that the original plaintiff respondent herein filed Regular Civil Suit No. 147 of 1984 challenging the order of dismissal on vari...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. This petition styled as Public Interest Litigation has been filed by one Shri Lalit Shah seeking prayer for a direction to the Agriculture and Cooperation Department of the Government of Gujarat to formulate an appropriate scheme for repayment of money of the depositors by way of implementation of One Time Settlement(OTS for short) for the borrowers of the banks in liquidation in conformity with the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India(RBI for short).2. The case of the petitioner is that he has made deposits with one Charotar Nagrik Sahkari Bank which is a cooperative bank which is under liquidation. RBI has issued guidelines vide communication dated 10.4.2006 to the Secretaries of the States for framing of scheme for OTS to be granted to the borrowers of the various Urban Cooperative Banks. It is also the case of the petitioner that though the State Government formulated a scheme for OTS, for cooperative banks operating in the State of Gujarat, in disregard to the said guidelines is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Present applicant is widow of one Rupabhai. Said Rupabhai had died in the year 1969 leaving his widow means present applicant, two minor sons and one minor daughter. Said Rupabhai owned agricultural lands admeasuring 113 acres, situated at village Balotri, Taluka Vav, District Banaskantha. Pursuant to amendment to Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 made effective from 1^st April, 1976, applicant filed declaration furnishing particulars of the lands held by her. Applicant having held land in excess of ceiling area, proceedings under the Act were initiated in Ceiling Case NO. 182/903/76. The Mamlatdar and ALT under his judgment and order dated 10^th August, 1982, hold that the applicant was entitled to retain one unit of ceiling area i.e. 54 acres of land. Lands to the extent of 59 acres 17 gunthas held by applicant were held to be surplus land. Feeling aggrieved, applicant preferred Ceiling Appeal NO. 98 of 1982 before the Deputy Collector, Tharad which was dismissed on 31^...
Tag this Judgment!