Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2006)IILLJ938Guj
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Payment of Gratuity Authority on 24.10.1997 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity on 28.10.1998.2. This Court has admitted the petition and rule was issued on 25.10.1999.3. The case of the petitioner was that the petitioner had joined the respondent No. 3 Factory in the year 1962 and left the said organization on 31.07.1995 by tendering his resignation. The petitioner was employed as Works Manager of a factory at Surat owned by the respondent Company, registered office of which is at Bombay. The petitioner has applied for gratuity vide his application dated 02.09.1995. Since the respondent Company has not taken any concrete action except for giving assurances, the petitioner has preferred an application dated 25.02.1997 before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1962)3GLR33
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Gujarat against the acquittal of the respondent who was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 34 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act for having contravened Section 18(2) of the same Act in that he did not send copies of the accounts in respect of three money-lending transactions dated 24-12-57 27 and 30-12-57 relating to loans advanced by him to Kisnad Group Co-operative Multi-purpose Society. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Broach who tried the case acquitted the respondent on the ground that a loan to a Co-operative society was not included in the definition of loan contained in Section 2(9) of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act. On this ground he acquitted the respondent although according to the Magistrate all the facts about the advancing of the loans were admitted by the respondent who was accused.2. In appeal it is contended by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State that the view taken...
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
Reported in : 1981ACJ207; AIR1980Guj172; (1979)2GLR371
Nanavatl, J. 1. The question of law, and of some importance, which arises in these revision applications for our consideration is whether a consignor who is not an owner of a part of the goods consigned by him (whom we shall call 'consignor-non-owner' for the sake of convenience) along with his own goods and under the same parcel way bill, is competent to file a suit for recovery of compensation from the Railway administration for loss, destruction, deterioration or damage caused to the goods as a result of delay or detention on the part of the Railway administration in their carriage? This question being common ~to all these revision applications, they are all disposed of together by this common judgment.2. The acts in all these cases are similar; and, therefore, we will refer to the representative facts of Civil Revision Application No. 272 of 1977 wily. It arises out of Regular Civil Suit No. 3963 of 1970 filed in the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad, by M/s.Tolaram, Hariram and K. A....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Cav Judgment: Bhaskar Bhattacharya, C.J. 1. This is a Reference under Section 54[1-A] of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 (Act), which has been made by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, in which this Bench has permitted the respondents no. 2 to 4 to appear as interveners vide order dated September 12, 2012 passed in OJ CA Nos. 227 of 2012 and 273 of 2012. 2. The brief facts of the case leading to the presentation of this Reference may be summed up thus: 2.1 The petitioner needed financial assistance for setting up an Ultra Mega Power Project in the area of Kutch-Bhuj and for that purpose, it secured assistance from few lenders. The lenders, thirteen in number, formed a consortium as a trust and executed a security trustee agreement inter se appointing one banker, viz. the State Bank of India, as a lead trustee, called, the security trustee. The duties of the security trustee are carved out in the said agreement of security trustees. The petitioner executed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2008)1GLR273
M.S. Shah, J.1. These petitions filed by M/s. Jindal Power Ltd. and P.T.C. India Limited challenge the communications dated 12-1-2007 of Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the first respondent' or 'the Corporation') cancelling the Letters of Intent which were awarded to the petitioners on 8-12-2006 for entering into Power Purchase Agreements.2. Facts:2.1 M/s. Jindal Power Ltd. (petitioner in Spl. C.A. No. 2186 of 2007) is engaged in the business of the generation and sale of electricity. P.T.C. India Ltd. (formerly known as Power Trading Corporation of India Ltd. - petitioner in Spl. C.A. No. 3514 of 2007) is a Government of India initiated Public Private Partnership, whose primary focus is to develop a commercially vibrant power market in the country.2.2 The first respondent-Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (Gujarat Energy Development Corporation Ltd.) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)212CTR(Guj)195
1. In these two Petitions along with the Civil Application, the petitioner has challenged the proceedings in consequence of the notices issued under Section 263 and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short `the Act') by the Commissioner of Income Tax for revision of the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act and by the Assessing Officer for reopening the same assessment order. The relevant Assessment Year is 2001-02.2. The petitioner in both these petitions prayed to quash and set aside the notices dated 30.03.2006 and 19.07.2006 issued under Section 148 and 142(1) of the Act and notices dated 17.01.2005 and 17.02.2005 issued under Section 263 of the Act.3. The assessment under Section 143(3) was completed on 10.03.2004. For reopening of this assessment, notice under Section 148 was issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee and notice under Section 263 was issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax for revision of the assessment order passed by the Assess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2007Guj203; (2008)2GLR1559
ORDERD.N. Patel, J.1. Learned Counsel for the respective parties waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents.Important issues have been raised for the adjudication by this Court, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, viz.:(I) Whether the third parry is entitled to get, written notice, of request of applicant (who is seeking information), so as:(i) to allow/permit the third party to treat the information (relating to or supplied by the third party) as confidential, if so far not treated as confidential; and(ii) to oppose the disclosure of such information i.e. information relating to or supplied by the third party and has been treated as confidential by the third party under Section 11(1) to be read with Section 7(7) of the Act 2005.(II) Whether the third party is entitled to get an opportunity of personal hearing before disclosure of information relating to or supplied by the third party and has been treated as confidential by the third party under Section 11(1) to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2008GLH(1)556; (2008)1GLR884
Anant S. Dave, J.1. Rule.2. Learned Advocates appearing for the Respondents waive service of Rule in all these writ petitions.3. All these writ petitions involve common question of law and submissions made by the learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners as well as respondents are almost similar in the context of the subject-matter of the petition, all the writ petitions are decided finally by common order as agreed by all concern.4. Before dealing with factual aspects, considering the nature of controversies about powers of competent authority under the Act to correct or cancel entry recorded in the register of Births and Deaths and to what extent correction and cancellation can be made in the said register, it is necessary to refer to statutory provisions of the Act, Rules and also guidelines framed by the respective Government in this regard.All the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India involves mainly three different statutes namely Registration of Bir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)2GLR1690
R.S. Garg, J.1. Shri B.S. Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioner; Shri Dipen Desai, learned A.G.P. for the State. Parties are finally heard.2. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 31-5-1999 (Annexure-E to the petition) whereunder the competent authority has refused to issue No Objection Certificate under the provisions of Section 21 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act or even otherwise has refused to grant No Objection Certificate for raising certain construction, is before this Court.3. The short facts necessary for disposal of the present writ application are that the petitioner is the owner of the land of Survey Nos. 350 and 330 admeasuring 1 Acre and 1 Guntha and 2 Acres and 16 Gunthas situated at Manjalpur, Vadodara. On 14-8-1976, the petitioner made an application in Form-5 under Section 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 seeking permission to develop the land in accordance with Section 21 of the Act. During pendency of the said application, the Stat...
Tag this Judgment!