Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-19-2005
Reported in : [2006]129CompCas121(Guj); [2005]61SCL254(Guj)
..... application no. 112 of 2001, the quorum for the meeting was to be of two persons either present in person or through proxies. so far as the meeting of secured creditors is concerned, there was only one secured creditor i.e. bank of india and no one else is the secured creditor. ranchhodrai traders or pankaj vijay & co. were not secured creditors of the company in liquidation. the petitioner no. 1 on behalf of essen computers limited (in liquidation) has filed statement of affairs under section 454 of the companies act, 1956 ..... further submitted that non-transfer of shares in the company's register would not disentitle her client from raising objection to the scheme. in support of this proposition, she relied on the decision of the hon'ble supreme court in the case of life insurance corporation of india v. escorts limited and others, air 1986 s.c. 1370 wherein it is held that a shareholder has an undoubted interest in a company, an interest which is represented by his share-holding. share is movable property, with all the attributes ..... act. objection was also raised to the effect that full balance-sheet was not filed alongwith the scheme. from the chairman's report dated 07.05.2001, it appears that bank of india and state bank of india have given their consent to the repayment plan. however, no mention has been made in the petition as whether other financial institutions have given their consent or not. looking to all these facts, the scheme should not be sanctioned by this court.43 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-18-2005
Reported in : 2005(101)ECC653; 2005(183)ELT344(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. RULE. Mr. Jitendra Malkan, learned Senior Standing Counsel, waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. By consent of the respective parties, for the reasons that follow hereinafter, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The facts lie in a very narrow compass. The petitioner has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus for quashing the order of attachment of goods dated 6th September 2004 and action of respondent No. 3 of invoking and encashing Bank Guarantee No. 24/4.A further consequential relief seeking restitution of the position as prevailing before the encashment is also sought. The petitioner had preferred an appeal in accordance with provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) accompanied by an application for stay of demand. After hearing the parties on 21st May, 1996 an order came to be made b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-15-2005
Reported in : (2005)3GLR2515
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation'), petitioner, have filed present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, before this Court challenging the judgment and award dated 4th March, 1986, passed by the Industrial Tribunal ('the tribunal' for short), Ahmedabad in Reference (I.T.) No.693 of 1980.1.1 The tribunal by its impugned judgment and award has held that, as regards demand for fixation of working hours and overtime, it would be fair enough if the workmen of the Corporation are given these benefits on the same lines as in the Gujarat Minimum Wages Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules'). The tribunal also held that the benefits of working hours of the workmen in the tube wells shall be on same limes as in the said Rules particularly Rule 24. The tribunal further held that the overtime shall be paid at double the rates of wages on the same lines as provided under the said Ru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-04-2005
Reported in : [2006]131CompCas652(Guj); [2005(107)FLR951]; (2005)3GLR2019; [2006]68SCL311(Guj)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. The present matters have been placed before us because the learned single Judge, by his Order dated 3rd July, 2001 passed on Company Application No. 216 of 1997 in Company Petition No. 21 of 1984, found that there was a conflict of views in two judgments of the Supreme Court and as certain important issues were involved in the matter, the matter be decided by the Division Bench, the learned single Judge, accordingly, made the reference. The three questions, which have been referred to us, are as under:1. Whether the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. National Iron & Steel Rolling Corporation reported in 1995 AIR SCW 214 is binding or whether the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dena Bank v. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh & Co., reported in 2000 (4) Supreme Today 5000 is binding to this case.2. Whether amount standing to the credit of the workers regarding their contribution to Employees State Insurance Act in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-09-2005
Reported in : 2006CriLJ726
Jayant Patel, J.1. Life is dear to everybody and death is painful to one and all. Should sentiments prevail or discipline for the administration of any institution Can sentiments be allowed to be enforced over rule of law Can the action or inaction or propriety of action or inaction to discharge legal obligation be said as an aid or instigation or abetment to commit suicide The aforesaid are the aspects which directly or indirectly arise for the consideration of this Court in the present group of petitions.2. The short facts of the case are as under:(i) There is no dispute on the following aspects:a. Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as LIC for short) is a statutory body governed by the provisions of LIC Act and its employees are governed by the Regulations framed by LIC in exercise of the statutory power under LIC Act.b. The deceased Dineshbhai Ganpatbhai Parmar was an employee of LIC holding of the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer.c. The petitioners of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-22-2005
Reported in : 2006ACJ1448; (2005)3GLR2372
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. Through this appeal, judgment of MACT (Main) Rajkot District (District Judge) Rajkot District in MAC Case No. 382/85 dated 9.5.88 is challenged.Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?2. Shortly stated, claimant was cleaner in the Revenue Department Government of Gujarat, earning Rs. 450.00 per month apart from Rs. 8/- to Rs. 10/- from the tea hand cart in his free time, total earning Rs. 700.00. Accident took place at about 12.30 p.m. (noon). Driver (Opponent No. 1) was driving offending tanker He had been engaged by Morbi Taluka Panchayat (Opponent No. 4). Tanker belonged to Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat (Opponent No. 2). It was insured with M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Opponent No. 3). Allegation is that tanker was being driven at excessive speed, rashly and negligently, thereby endangering human life on the road. It turned turtle and claimant sustained injuries. Ultimately, his right leg was amputed. He was 22 ye...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-26-2005
Reported in : AIR2006Guj194
Akshay H. Mehta, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the depositors of Diamond Jubilee Cooperative Bank Ltd., having its administrative office at Salabatpura, Main Road, Surat, [ hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'] to safeguard their interest. This petition is, therefore, in the nature of public interest litigation.2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that on account of acts of malfeasance and misfeasance of Ex-Directors and Ex-Officers of the Bank in collusion and association with outsiders i.e. loanees/borrowers, the Bank has ultimately gone into liquidation jeopardizing the deposits of thousands of depositors. It is the say of the petitioner that respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 have completely failed to safeguard the interest of the depositors and now after liquidation, respondent No. 4 has failed to discharge its statutory obligation as provided under the provisions of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-27-2005
Reported in : IV(2006)ACC432; 2006ACJ1941; (2006)1GLR637
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. These Appeals and Cross Objections are directed against the Award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Panchmahals at Godhara, MACP No. 98 of 1984, dated 29.10.1988. First Appeal No. 468 of 1989 is by insured for setting aside the award, First Appeal No. 931 of 1989 is by State of Gujarat for setting aside the Award against it, while Cross Objections No. 90 of 2004 are by claimant for enhancement of Award. Therefore, they arise out of the same accident, same parties and common Award. Consequently, being disposed of by this judgment.2. Shortly stated, accident took place on 10.8.1983. Shri R.D.Chaudhari (claimant) was Police Sub Inspector at that time. Along with other police officials, he had gone to Godhara, Dahod, etc. on 9.8.1983 from Balasinor in connection with investigation of dacoity case registered at Balasinor Police Station vide C.R.No.59 of 1983. Rasulmiya Ahmadmiya (opponent-1) was driver of Jeep by which the police party was traveling. When they ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-21-2005
Reported in : [2006(109)FLR1030]
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner, namely, United India Insurance Company Limited, has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing and setting aside the judgment and award dated 12.8.1996 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference (ITC) No. 46 of 1991. The Court has admitted the matter and issued rule on 11.3.1997 and interim relief was continued subject to the provision of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent workman has alleged that he has worked with the petitioner Company from 29.12.1980 to 24.12.1981 and he has been given artificial break during that period. It is also alleged in the statement of claim that he had performed his duties with the petitioner Company upto 15.6.1983 and thereafter, his services were illegally terminated. It was contention of the respondent workman before the Labour Court that he had completed more than 240 days of continuous service ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-09-2005
Reported in : [2007]135CompCas407(Guj)
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Textile Labour Association, appellant, has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 25th August, 1998, passed by this Court in Civil Application No. 147 of 1998 with Company Application No. 265 of 1998 in Misc. Civil Application No. 6 of 1992 i.e., in the case of Industrial Finance Corporation India v. O.L. of Amruta Mills Ltd.2. Mr. D.S.Vasavada, learned advocate appeared for the appellant - Textile Labour Association. He has invited our attention to the following facts:1. The appellant submits that by an order dated 22nd November, 1991, in Company Petition No. 72 of 1991, the Amruta Mills Ltd., was ordered to be wound up by this Court. Pursuant to the order dated 12th March, 1997, passed by this Court in Misc.Civil Application No. 6 of 1992, the assets of the Amruta Mills Ltd. (in liquidation) (hereinafter referred to as Sthe Company), other than lands and buildings of the Company have been sold at a public auction. The sale was conducted under the reco...
Tag this Judgment!