Court : Gujarat
1. In these cases, while the petitioners have challenged the validity of the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2008 [hereinafter referred to as "the Amending Act, 2008"], sought for a declaration that Sections 67, 73, 73A, 74, 74D, 76, 81 and 81A of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Principal Act"] as amended by the Amending Act, 2008 are unconstitutional and invalid. Prayer has also been made to set aside the guidelines dated 10.7.2007 and 29.4.2008 issued by the Reserve Bank of India [hereinafter referred to as "the RBI"].2. When the matter was taken up on 10.8.2010, Mr SN Soparkar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the RBI, informed that both the guidelines dated 10.7.2007 and 29.4.2008 issued by the RBI have been substituted by fresh guidelines dated 18.6.2008 and all the co-operative societies have been allowed to function as per their Bye-laws.3. An affidavit is also filed on behalf of the 1^s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14/8/2008 rendered by Ld. Judge, City Civil Court No. 10, Ahmedabad [for short 'the City Court'] in Civil Misc. Application No. 63/2008, whereby the City Court allowed said application filed by the respondent herein under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [for short 'the Act'] and set aside the award dated 02/12/2007 rendered by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator. The original claimants, in the result, preferred this appeal. Thus, the appellants were original claimants and the respondent was original respondent in the said arbitration proceedings and, therefore, for the sake of convenience, the appellants and the respondent shall be hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants' and 'the respondent' respectively.2. Both the parties happened to be partners of a partnership firm, which carried on business in clothes in the name and style of M/s. Sultansingh Mohansingh. A dispute took place amongst the partners, resul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Since common issue is involved in both these petitions, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. Special Civil Application No.10105 of 2007 is filed by the petitioner, namely, Star Infrastructure requesting this Court to allow the petitioner to rescind and repudiate its original contract with the Corporation concerning the sale to it of Final Plot Nos.98 & 162 by holding that the Corporation has unilaterally altered the original terms of the auction sale vide order dated 23.03.2007, and that has resulted in a material variation of the original auction terms. The petitioner has also prayed for the direction to the Corporation to refund the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of a sum of Rs.10 Lacs given by the petitioner on 07.02.2007 to the respondent Corporation. The petitioner has further prayed for the direction commanding the Corporation not to forfeit the EMD of a sum of Rs.10 Lacs deposited by the petitioner with the respondent Corpora...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Leave to add the substantial questions of law as proposed vide amendment dated 27.10.2010.2. In this appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act), the appellant-revenue has challenged order dated 1^st June, 2009, made by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad (the Tribunal) proposing the following questions:"(a) Whether the deemed export made by the Notice to other 100% EOUs in the country in terms of para 9.20 of Exim policy 1997-2002 were to be considered for the purpose of para 9.9(a), 9.9(b) and 9.20 of Exim policy 1997-2002 after taking consideration the definition of "Export" as described under Section 2(18) of Customs Act, 1962 as the term "Export" is neither defined in Exim Policy 1997-2002 nor in Central Excise Act, 1944.(b) If the Deemed Export cannot be treated as "Export" in terms of Notification No.2/95 CE dated 04.01.95 then, can M/s.Sanju Silk Mills be permitted to clear goods in DTA against the Deemed E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Both the petitions arise out of the same factual and legal background, and therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. Before proceeding to notice the factual and legal controversy, as emerging from Special Criminal Application No.2271 of 2007, it would be appropriate to notice that respondent No.1, in respective petitions, is the owner of the factory, against whom, because of water pollution, proceedings were initiated. The owners have been duly served, but, have not been represented by any advocate. Respondent No.2-Company, in each petition, is not served. However, under challenge in these petitions are the orders passed by the learned Magistrate in discharge applications, filed by the owners, wherein the said Companies were not joined as the petitioners. In above view of the matter, I have proceeded to hear the learned Advocates for the petitioner, GPCB, in both the matters.3. In Special Criminal Application No.2271 of 2007, the petitioner Board has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Amendment is allowed. Applicant to carry out amendment as per the draft amendment during the course of the day.2. Rule. Mr. LB Dabhi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State of Gujarat.3. Having regard to the facts of the case, the application is taken up for hearing today.4. The applicant convict prisoner, who, by judgment and order dated 20.3.2006 rendered in Sessions Case No.43 of 2004 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Patan has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced imprisonment of life, has filed this application praying to enlarge him on temporary bail for a period of three months, to enable him to get the treatment of the doctor of his own choice for the various ailments suffered by him.5. Having heard Mr. MR Prajapati, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. LB Dabhi, learned APP for the respondent State of Gujarat and upon ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the order impugned dated 14.01.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in Criminal Appeal No.164 of 2010 by which the prayer for bail made by the petitioner-juvenile was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Hazaribag on 09.12.2010 was affirmed in Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 70 of 2010, corresponding to G.R.No. 2980 of 2010 and the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner was arrested but he was declared juvenile after determination of his age by the Juvenile Justice Board on 18.12.2010. The F.I.R. was lodged against as many as 11 named accused persons including the petitioner-juvenile for the alleged offence under Sections 376/354/306/509/511 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 66A/66B/67A/67B and 72 of the the Information and Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.2. Learned Counsel Mr. Nilesh Kumar submitted that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Civil Revision Application No. 729 of 1999 has been filed by the petitioner-original plaintiff for the prayer that the order passed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, below Exh. 3 granting permission to appeal against the judgment and order passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 248/97 by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Banaskantha at Annexure-A may be set aside on the grounds stated in the Memo of Petition, inter alia, that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant-applicants were not a party at all before the trial court and therefore they have no right to file an appeal challenging the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court. It is also contended that the trial court has failed to appreciate the provisions of O. 41 R. 1 & 2 which resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is also contended that the lower appellate court ought to have issued notice to the present petitioner and without giving any opportunity of hearing the order is passed. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. One Shri Chandrakant B. Patel, claiming to be a senior citizen, as is mentioned in the Notice issued through advocate Shri Prashant K. Kapadia, is before this Court praying that order dated 31^st August 2010, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Vadodara West division, Vadodara be quashed and set aside.2. The facts of the case are that, the petitioner, through his wife, invested amount on various dates in Kisan Vikas Patra (hereinafter referred to 'KVP'), details of these investments are set out in a tabular form, produced at Annexure 'B', page 11 to this petition. The amount invested totals to Rs.2,80,000/-, which will be Rs.5,60,000/- on maturity. What is important is that, the wife of the petitioner was the 'SAS' 'agent' for collecting the deposits under various schemes of Post Office. Through her, the petitioner - husband deposited aforesaid amount in KVP with the Post Office authorities.2.1 The learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The applicant, a member of the Gujarat Sales Tax Bar Association and Sales Tax Practitioner (hereinafter referred to as the "Association") has preferred present application seeking leave to prefer a Letters Patent Appeal against the common order dated 25.10.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions being SCA No.11185 of 2010 and SCA No. 7466 of 2010. The applicant has preferred similar application for similar relief in SCA No.7466 of 2010 hence both the applications are decided by common order.2. The fulcrum of the said petitions was election of the Managing Committee (hereinafter referred to as "Committee") of the said Association. The applicant claims that he was elected as President in the election held on 23.9.2010, however subsequently the learned Single Judge passed order dated 25.10.2010, (which is, apparently, a consent order or "ad-invitum" order) in view of which fresh election of the committee of the said Association were to be held under the supervisi...
Tag this Judgment!