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 : AIR2008Guj20; (2008)1GLR158
ORDERAkshay H. Mehta, J.1. This Court issued Rule on the petition on 24-8-2007. Mr. Sunit Shah, Ld. GP waived service of rule for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. A.R. Thakkar, learned advocate waived service of rule for respondents Nos. 3 to 6. At the request of the learned advocates for the parties and looking to the urgency, the petition was taken up for final hearing on 24-8-2007 itself. The hearing got concluded on 29-8-2007, Thereafter, the petition has been adjourned to 3-9-2007 for pronouncement of the judgment. Now it is being disposed of by this CAV judgment.2. The petitioners herein seek to challenge the proceedings initiated against them under the provisions of The Gujarat Provision for Disqualification of Members of Local Authorities for Defendant Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and The Gujarat Provision for Disqualification of Members of Local Authorities for Defection Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') as also The Gujarat Provision for ...
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 : (2008)1GLR409
Akshay H. Mehta, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has sought to challenge order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange at New Delhi dated 2-2-2007 below the application given in Appeal No. 121 of 1999. By the said order, the application filed by the petitioner for dispensation of making pre-deposit has been rejected and appeal has been ordered to be listed on 22-5-2007 for hearing. It is stated at the Bar that the appeal is not yet heard.2. The facts, in short, giving rise to the present petition can be stated as under:2.1. The deceased father of the petitioner viz., Shri Ishwardas Bechardas Patel was in the Angadia business as a partner of M/s. Patel Ishwardas Bechardas, a firm having four partners including him. The other three partners were his brothers. On 5-1-1994 a team of Preventive Officers under the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') visited the Mumbai branch of the partnership firm and seized various ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)IIILLJ195Guj
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr. Chhaya, learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents. With the consent of the learned Advocates for both the sides, the matter is finally heard today.2. The question which arises for the consideration of this Court in the present petition is as to whether the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has the jurisdiction under the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act to entertain the appeal against the order passed by the Collector or his delegatee under Section 39A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code or not.3. I have heard Mr. Sejpal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chhaya, learned AGP for the State Authorities.4. It appears that the proceedings were initiated by the Mine Supervisor, Geological Department against the petitioner under Section 39A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). As per Section 39A of the Code, the powers are with the Collector, however, as per the communication dated 9.12.2006 received by the learned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1980]121ITR311(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. The petitioner herein is a public limited company having its registered office at Kathwada in Ahmedabad District and the relief which is sought in this writ petition is against the ITO, Company Circle IX, praying that the record and proceedings of the case of the petitioner-company before the respondent may be called for and after looking into the same, a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction and/or instruction or any order of the same nature under art. 226 should be issued quashing the order of the ITO, Ex. 'N', whereby the ITO has refused to issue tax clearance certificate to the applicant. The petitioner has also prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order, instruction or direction of the same nature directing the respondent to promptly grant the tax clearance certificate as prayed for by the applicant. The facts leading to this petition are as follows : By a letter dated April 27,...
Tag this Judgment!