Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-11-2009
Reported in : AIR2010Guj21
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. The question whether a child born in India to a surrogate mother, an Indian national, whose biological father is a foreign national, would get citizenship in India, by birth, is a momentous question which has no precedent in this country.2. Petitioner is a German national and is a biological father of two babies given birth by a surrogate mother by name - Marthaben Immanuel Khristi - a citizen of India. Petitioner's wife Susanne Anna Lohle is a German national. Due to biological reasons, the wife of the petitioner was not in a position to conceive a child. Desiring to have a child of their own, they opted for In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). Assisted Reproductive Technology Infertility Clinic at Anand came to their help. Investigation revealed that wife of the petitioner would not be in a position to reproduce ova (eggs) as a result of which it would not be possible to conceive a child even with the help of a surrogate mother by using the sperm of the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-04-2009
Reported in : [2010]24STT121
K.A. Puj, J.1. Since common issue is involved in all these petitions, and since they are heard together, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. Special Civil Application Nos. 9656 & 9713 of 2008 are filed by Domestic Tariff Area Units and goods are cleared to SEZ units under LUT/Bond and/ or rebate.3. Special Civil Application Nos. 11032 & 9806 of 2008 are filed by SEZ Developers and remaining 8 petitions are filed by SEZ Units. The Domestic Tariff Area Suppliers followed the procedure of LUT/Bond while clearing the goods to SEZ Units.4. In Special Civil Application Nos. 9656, 9713, 10444, 10445, 10446, 13298, 11032 and 11909 of 2008, Mr. K.S. Nanavati and Mr. Mihir H. Joshi, learned Senior Advocates appeared with Mr. Keyur Gandhi for Nanavati Associates for the petitioners.5. In Special Civil Application Nos. 9792 & 9806 of 2008, learned advocates Mr. Vikram Nankani with Mr. Uday Joshi with Mr. Hardik Gupta of M/s. Trivedi and Gupta Advocates and Mr. Hardik Mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-14-2009
Reported in : (2010)1GLR321
ORDER119. The plaintiffs are entitled to recover jointly and severally from the National Aviation of Company India Ltd. ('the Airlines' for short) and the Airport Authority of India compensation of Rs. 7,53,000/- (Rupees Seven lacs fifty three thousand only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of deposit/payment. The plaintiffs are also entitled to recover their costs as already determined in the decree of the trial Court in one set, as explained in the preceding para.The defendants shall bear their own costs of the suit as well as of these appeals.120. The Indian Airlines Corporation (now the National Aviation Company of India Ltd.) and the Airport Authority of India are held jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation with interest and costs.121. The amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- paid by the Indian Airline Corporation to the plaintiffs as well as the amount deposited by the Airport Authority before the trial...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-04-2009
Reported in : AIR2010Guj30; (2010)1GLR437
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. Francis Bacon, Lord Chancellor of England and a renowned Jurist quoted thus;2. Read not to contradict and confute; not to believe and take for granted; nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and consider. Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.3. Government of Gujarat in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.PC) read with Section 153A and 153B of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) issued a notification dated 19th August, 2009 ordering to forfeit and prohibit the book named Jinnah-India, Partition, Independence written by Shri Jashwant Singh and also its display, sale and distribution and any kind of its use in the State of Gujarat. Notification states that the Government of Gujarat ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-27-2009
Reported in : AIR2009Guj172
ORDERAbhilasha Kumari, J.1. Rule. Mr. Utpal M. Panchal, learned Counsel states that he has now been engaged by the respondent in place of Mr. D.R. Dalal, who was representing the respondent earlier, and has filed his Vakalatnama in the Registry today. Mr. Utpal M. Panchal, learned Counsel waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided today.2. This petition has been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 7-3-2009 passed below application at Exh.42 in Regular Civil Suit No. 595 of 2005 by the learned 4th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Surat, whereby the said application filed by the respondent (original defendant) for amendment in the written statement has been allowed.3. The brief facts of the case, as emerging from a perusal of the averm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-24-2009
Reported in : (2009)3GLR2416
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. MTM Hakim for learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.H. Sanjanwala on behalf of appellants, learned advocate Mr. T. P. Satta for learned advocate Mr. A.V. Trivedi appearing for respondent No. 7-United India Insurance Co. Ltd., learned advocate Ms. Renu Singh for learned advocate Mr. Y. N. Ravani appearing for respondents-claimants.2. The appellant being a owner of vehicle-Visat Travels-a partnership firm through its partner challenging common award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mehsana in respect to Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 426 of 1986 and 427 of 1986, Exh.135,decided on 18/1/1993.3. Brief facts of present appeals are as under:3.1 The deceased Haribhai Ambalal was driving scooter No. GAL-3614 and deceased Babubhai Ambalal was a pillion rider of that scooter and both of them were going from Shertha to Kalol on 11/5/1986. The scooter was being driven by Haribhai on correct side of road with moderate speed and when scooter reached ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-13-2009
Reported in : AIR2009Guj190
ORDERD.A. Mehta, J.1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner orally seeks permission to place on record order dated 31.3.2009 made by Revisional Authority as Annexure 'G'. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out during course of the day. The petition is taken up for hearing on the footing that the amendment has taken place.2. This petition challenges orders dated 1.9.2008 made by Taluka Development Officer, 7.2.2009 made by District Development Officer and order dated 31.3.2009 made by Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayat Gram Gruhnirman and Gram Vikas Vibhag, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kharadharva Gram Panchayat at election held in April, 2007. The Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 32 read with Section 30(1)(m) of The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act). Taluka Development Officer held that the petitioner was having more t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-10-2009
Reported in : AIR2009Guj184
ORDERM.R. Shah, J.1. ADMIT. Mr. A.B. Munshi, learned advocate waives the service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent No. 1, who is the main contesting party. Though served nobody appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The respondent Nos. 2 and 5 have refused to accept the notice. However, the main contesting party is respondent No. 1 herein - original plaintiff.2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, present Appeal From Order is taken up for final hearing today.3. Heard Mr. Dhaval Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant -original defendant No. 5 and Mr. P.C. Kavina, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. A.B. Munshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 herein - original plaintiff at length and perused the impugned order as well as Paper-Book supplied by the learned advocates.4. Present Appeal From Order under Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been prefe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-29-2009
Reported in : 2010CriLJ224
ORDERH.N. Devani, J.1. Rule. Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned Central Government Standing Counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 1 Central Bureau of Investigation and Mr. D.C. Sejpal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.2 State of Gujarat.2. Having regard to the facts of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the petitioners seek the following substantive reliefs:[A] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 22.09.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Court No. 3, at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.63 of 2008 in so far as it states as follows:It is however clarified th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-13-2009
Reported in : AIR2009Guj159
Mohit S. Shah, J.1. These Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 16.12.2008 of the learned Single Judge in writ petitions filed by the present appellant- Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'B.S.N.L.') challenging the Government Resolutions dated 4.5.2007 and 25.4.2008 in relation to the restoration charges and rental charges to be levied by the local authorities like, Municipalities and Municipal Corporations from B.S.N.L. and other service providers to lay down their telephone cables under the lands belonging to the local authorities.2. The learned Single Judge disposed of the petitions after giving following directions:25. In view of the above, following directions shall meet with the ends of justice:A) The petitioners may approach before the concerned authority under Section 15 of the Act for final quantification of the amount of charges to be collected as prescribed by the Government Resolution annexure-A.B) If such an app...
Tag this Judgment!