Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-26-2013
J.B. Pardiwala, R. Tripathi, Jayant Patel, M.R. Shah and A.G. Uraizee, JJ. This batch of Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been placed before this Special Bench pursuant to the order passed by the Honble the Chief Justice on a reference made by a Division Bench first in point of time on 13th August 2013 while hearing a Letters Patent Appeal No.596 of 2008 arising from a judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.408 of 1993. It appears that the need to refer the matter to a Larger Bench necessitated since the Referring Bench noticed a conflict between the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Revaben Wd/o Ambalal Motibhai, and others v. Vinubhai Purshottambhai Patel and others, reported in 2013(1) GLH 440, and a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dilavarsinhsinh Khodubha Jadeja v. The State of Gujarat and others, reported in 1995(1) GLH 58. In such circumstances referred to ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-13-2013
..... of those times, but with the changes occurring therein both in the domestic as also international arena, such a law can also be declared invalid.in john vallamattom and anr. v. union of india [(2003) 6 scc 611], this court, while referring to an amendment made in uk in relation to a provision which was in pari materia with section 118 of indian succession act, observed : "the constitutionality of a provision, it is trite, will have to be judged keeping in view the interpretative changes of the statute affected by passage of time." referring to the changing legal scenario and having ..... 320 [andhra pradesh high court]. 2. vasantha r. v. union of india and ors reported in (2001) ii ilj 843 [madras high court]. 3. natural textiles pvt. ltd. v. the union of indiareported in 2007 (3) kar lj 286 [karnataka high court]. 4. j.k. industries ltd. v. chief inspector of factories and boilers reported in (1996) 6 scc 655. 5. vishaka v. state of rajasthan reported in (1997) 6 scc 241. 6. anuj garg v. hotel association of india reported in air 2008 sc ..... 663. 7. air india cabin crew assocn v. yeshawinee merchantreported in air 2004 sc 187. 8. mr .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-21-2013
Cav Judgement 1. The petitions are arising out of the interim orders pending Lavad Suits before the learned Board of Nominee. Since the facts and issues in both the petitions are similar, they are heard and decided together finally at the admission stage with the consent of the learned advocates for the contesting parties. 2. Challenge made in both the petitions is to the orders dated 21.8.2013 passed by the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short), whereby the Tribunal rejected two different revision applications preferred by the petitioners against the interim orders of injunction passed by the learned Board of Nominee in two different Lavad Suits preferred by the respondent No.1- the Co-operative Housing Society against the petitioners. 3. The facts in nutshell need to be referred for the purpose of deciding the petitions are as under:- Respondent No.1 is a registered Co-operative Housing Society. The petitioners who purchased the plot Nos.4 and 1 respectively ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-21-2013
1. By presenting this present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant wife has sought to challenge judgment and decree dated 06.08.2011 of learned Additional District Judge, Surat at Vyara in Regular Civil Appeal No.32 of 2008, whereby the First Appellate Court confirm the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dissolving the marriage in a petition filed by the respondent-husband. The decree of divorce was prayed for and came to be passed on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 2. It was on the following substantial question of law formulated by the Court, that the present appeal was admitted: œWhether the lower appellate court was justified in holding that decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 could be granted on the ground of irretrievable break down of marriage?? 3. A profile of facts and events leading to the litigation between the spouses and culminating into the present appeal may be noted with releva...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-13-2013
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J: 1. This Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of an employer and is directed against order dated 26th February 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 670 of 2013 by which the learned Single Judge, after passing some direction upon the Industrial Tribunal, refused to interfere with the order impugned. 2. Being dissatisfied, the unsuccessful applicant of the writ-application has come up with the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. In the Special Civil Application No. 670 of 2013 filed by the appellants before us, the following prayers were made: œ(a).Your Lordship be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus order/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.12.2012 passed by the respondent no.1 “ Commissioner of Labour, State of Gujarat (Annexure-A). (b).During the pendency of hearing and final disposa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-22-2013
J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a debtor of the Union Bank of India, calls in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 17th July 2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, in Miscellaneous Application No.73 of 2012 being Exhibit 1 in exercise of powers under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 by which the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad directed the local police to assist the secured creditor, namely, the Union Bank of India to take over the possession of the secured assets mortgaged by the petitioner at the time of availing of the loan facility. 2. The petitioner also calls in question the legality, validity and propriety of the office order bearing no.A(VI) 40/2012 issued by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad dated 4th February...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-22-2013
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
Decided on : Jan-15-2013
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!