Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-22-1997
Reported in : AIR1998Guj60; [1998]91CompCas910(Guj); (1997)2GLR1134
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner is a member of the Ahmedabad Stock Exchange and is carrying on his business as stockbroker in Ahmedabad and is registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the SEBI') authorising the petitioner to carry on business in the name of Mitesh Manubhai Sheth. The petitioner was served with a notice of inspection by the SEBI on February 7, 1994. The inspection was undertaken from February 14, 1994, to February 16, 1994. The substance of the deficiencies observed during the inspection were communicated to the petitioner under memo dated May 30, 1994. The petitioner responded to the same by letter dated September 14, 1994. On September 29, 1994, the SEBI issued a notice to the petitioner under regulation 28(2) for enquiry to be undertaken by one Shri R. V. Nabar, enquiry officer. The letter was also accompanied by a memorandum containing the adverse findings of the inspection team. The petitioner was called upon to reply...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-30-1997
Reported in : 1998ACJ1003; (1997)3GLR736
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. By this appeal the appellant, original opponent No. 3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., has questioned legality and validity of the judgment and award dated 24.12.1996 delivered in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 336 of 1992 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar.2. The main question which has come up before us for consideration and adjudication in this appeal is 'whether the vehicular accident in question could be said to have occurred in a 'public place' as defined under Section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (new Act)?'3. In order to examine and appreciate the main question, we would like to highlight skeleton projection of the facts. The respondent No. 1 Gujarat Ship Trading Corporation which is the original claimant 'Corporation' by filing the aforesaid claim petition claimed Rs. 2,58,000/- under Section 166 of the new Act, and, inter alia, contended that the goods belonging to it came to be damaged on account of rash and negligent use of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-15-1997
Reported in : [1999]96CompCas841(Guj)
R. Balia, J. 1. The petitioner, American Express Bank Limited, through this petition has sought winding up of the respondent - company, Core Health Care Limited, on the ground that the respondent - company is unable to pay its debt within the meaning of section 433(e) read with section 434. Briefly stated, the claim of the petitioner is that it had advanced a bridge loan to the respondent - company which was disbursed on July 21, 1995, and July 27, 1995, in two instalments of Rs. 15 crores each which was payable in six instalments of Rs. 5 crores each commencing from April 21, 1996, and ending of June 27, 1996. The respondent - company failed in its commitment and had paid only Rs. 15 crores by August 24, 1996, and for the remainder it was granted reschedulement by way of seven instalments, of which six instalments for Rs. 2.50 crores each were payable by November 24, 1997, and the final instalment of Rs. 19.90 lakhs (on account of interest) too was payable on November 25, 1996. Howeve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-12-1997
Reported in : (1998)2GLR984
R.M. Doshit, J.1. This petition arises of the judgment and award of the learned Chief Judge, Labour Court, Rajkot passed on Recovery Application No. 1322 of 1980 on 30th April, 1984. 2. The respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') was in employment with the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the transport company') for more than nine years. It appears that on 1st May, 1980, the workman resigned from the service and on 23rd July, 1980, he preferred the above Recovery Application No. 1322 of 1980 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The workman claimed that every day he had worked for nearly 12 hours and he was, therefore, entitled to overtime for three hours every day. He further claimed that he had worked on all Sundays without any leave and he was entitled to a weekly-off. He, therefore, claimed wages for 468 Sundays. He also claimed wages for 63 days' leave and bonus at the rate of 20 per cent for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-14-1997
Reported in : [1999]97CompCas900(Guj); (1998)2GLR1065
..... passed by the learned judicial magistrate, first class. petlad on december 23, 1985 below applications exs. 5 and 7 in criminal case nos. 1302 of 1984, 1303 of 1984, 1304 of 1984, 1305 of 1984 and 1306 of 1984, holding that the cases filed under section 630(1) of the companies act, 1956 (hereinafter 'the act') by the complainant were barred by limitation under the provisions of section 468(2) procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'the code') rejected the complaints. 2. according to ..... immovable property. this provision provides a penalty for wrongful withholding of the property of a company by any officer or employee. under entry 43 of the union list contained in the seventh schedule to the constitution, the parliament is empowered to make law with respect to incorporation, regulation and winding up of trading corporations, including banking, insurance and financial corporations, but not including co-operative societies. under entry 44 of the said list, the parliament can make law ..... 16. we, therefore, do not agree with the contentions of the ex-employees that the provisions of section 630 are discriminatory or that they deprive them of their right to life under article 21 without following the procedure established by law. the challenge against the validity of section 630 of the act, therefore, fails. 17. under the above circumstances, we allow these revision applications and set aside the impugned orders of the learned magistrate dismissing the complaints on the ground that they are barred .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-20-1997
Reported in : (1998)1GLR850
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of Constitution to challenge orders passed by the Industrial Court at Vadodara. These petitions raise the following question :- When an employer chooses to dismiss or discharge his employees without giving them an opportunity of being heard and when the employees challenge that order by raising a dispute in the Labour Court, whether during the pendency of that proceeding, the employees would be entitled to receive an amount equivalent to the subsistence allowance. 2. The facts leading to these two petitions are as follows :- The first petitioner in both these petitions is a Co-operative Bank operating in the local area of Vadodra city. The second and petitioner is its Manager. The relationship between the first petitioner Bank and its employees is governed under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'B.I.R. Act, 1946'). 3. The respo...
Tag this Judgment!