Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1998)3GLR2224
M.R. Calla, J.1. This Review Application dated 27-3-1989 is directed against the order dated 17-4-1980 passed by This Court in Special Civil Application No. 1923 of 1979 and the facts of this case illumine litigious perseverance of the litigating party as petitioner. It is unfortunate that the original petitioner, viz., Arvindkumar Chandulal Pathak expired on 20-6-1994 during the pendency of this Misc. Civil Application (application for review of the order dated 17-4-1980). This Review Application is being pursued by his legal representatives.2. Said Shri Arvindkumar Chandulal Pathak was appointed as Head Master in the High School run by Mahajan Kelavani Mandal, Nandisar on probation for one year on 9-11-1970. An objection was raised by the District Education Officer against his appointment that he did not possess requisite experience to be appointed as Head Master and it was pointed out that school management would not get grant for the pay of the Head Master because the original peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2008)2GLR1226
M.R. Shah, J.1. As all these First Appeals arise out of common judgement and award passed by the learned Reference Court and raise common questions of fact and law, they are being disposed of by this common judgement and order.2. In all these First Appeals, the appellants original opponent No. 2 Oil and Natural Gas Corporation [ONGC] - acquiring body, has challenged the common judgement and award dtd. 15/10/2005 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana (Mr.J.R. Shah) (the SReference Court for short) in Land Reference Case Nos. 3780 to 3784 of 2003, whereby the Reference Court has granted compensation of Rs. 3 per sq.mtr. from the date of taking over possession upto 31/12/1983; Rs. 3.33 per sq.mtr. from 1/1/1984 to 31/12/1985; Rs. 4 per sq.mtr. from 1/1/1986 to 31/12/1987; Rs. 4.50 per sq.mtr. from 1/1/1988 to 31/12/1990; Rs. 5 per sq.mtr. from 1/1/1991 to 31/12/1993; Rs. 6.66 per sq.mtr. from 1/1/1994 to 31/12/1996; Rs. 8.33 per sq.mtr from 1/1/1997 to 31/12/1999; Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2006)2GLR1707
Anil R. Dave, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the order dated 24.2.2006 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 47 of 2006 in Misc. Civil Application No. 27 of 206. 2. Brief facts, giving rise to this appeal, are as under:2.1 On 17.2.2006, in one of the courts, mobile phone of the appellant, who is a senior advocate practising in this court, started ringing. The appellant, upon finding that his mobile phone had started ringing, switched off the phone while going out of the court room so as to see that the court is not disturbed. When the learned single Judge noticed that the phone of the appellant had started ringing in the court, he issued notice to the appellant calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for ignoring the directions given by that court that nobody should bring his working mobile phone in the court so as to allow his mobile phone to ring. The notice was made r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2004ACJ1657
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. These three Letters Patent Appeals have been directed against the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge passed on 8th August 2003, allowing the three petitions from which these appeals arise, while the Special Civil Application No. 9425 of 2002 has been filed for a direction on the respondents - insurance companies not to exclude the diseases contracted by the petitioner No.2 during the period of mediclaim policy, which was renewed from time to time, and not to load the premium, as was sought to be done, and to renew the mediclaim policies of the petitioner No.2 and 3.2. All the matters relate to mediclaim insurance policy and revolve around the question, whether the insurer has absolute right to cancel the contract of mediclaim insurance or to refuse renewal of the mediclaim policy and have been argued together by the learned counsel appearing for all the parties.Brief Facts and Pleadings :3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1028 of 2003, which arises from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2002)4GLR3294
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. What is challenged in these two petitions which are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are two Orders, both dated November 23, 2001 and issued by the Director (Sugar), Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, removing the petitioners as Directors of the Vadodara District Co-operative Sugarcane Growers Union Limited and Sardar Co-operative Sugar Industries Limited ('the Societies' for short) and appointing respondent Nos. 4 to 15 as Directors of the Societies as per Bye-laws Nos. 21(2)(A) and 8(B)(1) of both the respective Societies.2. As both these petitions involve determination of common questions of facts and law, by the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, the matters are taken up for final hearing and I propose to dispose them of by this common Judgment.3. In Order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, it would be advantageous to refer to the facts stated in Special Civil Application No. 11098 of 2001.4. The averments ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1988)1GLR589
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The Gujarat State Legislature enacted the Gujarat Mineral Rights Tax Act, 1985 (Gujarat Act 19 of 1985) (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Act' or 'the impugned Legislation') to provide for the levy and collection of tax on mineral rights of holders of mining leases in respect of certain minerals in the State of Gujarat specified in the Schedule. The Act received the assent of the Governor of Gujarat on 2nd August, 1985 and was first published in the Gujarat Government Gazette on 3rd August, 1985. By a notification dated 29th October, 1985 issued under Sub-section (3) of Section 1, the State Government brought the Act into force with effect from 1st November, 19852. The petitioners of this group of Writ Petitions arc holders of mining leases granted by the State of Gujarat under provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Central Act, 67 of 1957) (hereinafter called 'the Central Act') read with the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2004)1GLR637; [2004]53SCL330(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. These three Letters Patent appeals have been directed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge passed on 8th August, 2003, allowing the three petitions from which these appeals arise, while the Special Civil Application No. 9425 of 2002 has been filed for a direction on the respondents - Insurance Companies not to exclude the diseases contracted by the petitioner No. 2 during the period of mediclaim policy, which was renewed from time to time, and not to load the premium, as was sought to be done, and to renew the mediclaim policies of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3.2. All the matters relate to mediclaim insurance policy and revolve around the question, whether the insurer has absolute right to cancel the contract of mediclaim insurance or to refuse renewal of the mediclaim policy and have been argued together by the learned Counsel appearing for all the parties.Brief Facts and Pleadings :3. The Letters Patent Appeal No. 1028 of 2003, which arises ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2003CriLJ565; (2002)3GLR599
Akshay H. Mehta, J.1. The appellant in this appeal has challenged his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bulsar at Navsari vide judgment dated 31-3-1994 in Sessions Case No. 132 of 1991 and the resultant order of sentence of imprisonment for life.2. The case of prosecution in nutshell can be stated as under :-2.1. Deceased Sumiben Natubhai lived in locality known as Mograwadi, near Bhut Bungalow in Bulsar with her family which comprised her husband and three children. She had developed illicit intimacy with the appellant 2 to 3 years prior to the date of incident. As a result of that intimacy, the appellant often visited her place. On one of such visits which took place on 22-8-1991 at about 9-00 p.m. the appellant demanded liquor from the deceased. Acceding to his request, the deceased gave him a glass full of liquor. After consuming the liquor, the appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 30/- from her. Dece...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)179CTR(Guj)266; [2003]259ITR526(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. This reference has been placed before the Full Bench pursuant to the order dated March 13, 2001, passed by a Division Bench of this court taking the view that the decision of another Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Windsor Foods Ltd : [1999]235ITR249(Guj) , dealing with the question of interplay between the provisions of Section 32A (investment allowance) and those of Section 32A (relating to fluctuation in foreign exchange rate) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), requires reconsideration.2. The assessee is a public limited company manufacturing fertilizers and other products. The assessee entered into a contract for purchasing plant and machineries (the assets) from a Japanese company on deferred credit basis. Though the year of purchase is not clear from the paper book, the assessee was required to make payment in instalments over a period of 12 years (page 203).3. The liability for the instalments towards the cost of the assets for the calendar years 197...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2004)1GLR381
1. The present group of petitions are filed by the State of Gujarat, through its Deputy Collector, Choryasi Prant, Surat, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order dtd. 29.02.1996 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in 89 Revision Applications being TEN B.S. 229/93 to 261/93, 317/93 to 345/93, 66/94, 114/94, 249/94 to 263/94, 275/94, 131/95, 132/95 and 151/95 to 157/95, whereby the Tribunal has allowed all the aforesaid 89 Revision Applications filed by the present respondent No.1 i.e. Shri Sachin Udyognagar Sahkari Mandali Ltd., Surat, quashing and setting aside the orders of Deputy Collector, Choryasi Prant, Surat and Deputy Collector (L.R.), Surat.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 Society was formed for the exclusive object and purpose of setting up an industrial township in the area covering the villages Sachin, Vanz, Lapore, Popada and Bhatia in Choryasi Taluka of Surat District. At the relevant po...
Tag this Judgment!