Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1965Guj87; (1964)10GLR769
Miabhoy, J.(1) In this group of six appeals, a preliminary objection has been raised for decision. The objection was first raised when Letters Patent Appeal No. 8 of 1960 was called out for hearing. As the objection affected a number of other Letters Patent Appeals, we adjourned the hearing of the appeal and directed that all other Letters Patent Appeals in which the same objection was likely to be raised should be fixed for hearing them together so that the preliminary objection, if raised, could be decided after hearing all the learned Advocates appearing therein. It is in pursuance of that order that all the above appeals are fixed for hearing the preliminary objection if the same happens to be raised. This judgment will dispose of the preliminary objection which is raised by all the learned Advocates for the respondents in all the appeals.(2) The preliminary objection is that the present appeals are incompetent without the certificate of the learned Judgers of he Bombay High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: 1. These appeals under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure are filed by original plaintiffs. They filed suits seeking declaration that they being employees of the erstwhile Junagadh State, they could not be retired at the age of 58 years but would be entitled to continue in service till 60 years of age as they would continue to be governed by the rules of erstwhile Junagadh State even after its merger into Saurashtra State which merged into bilingual State of Bombay and then Gujarat State on bifurcation from Bombay State. 2. The appellant of Second Appeal No. 86 of 1997 had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 700 of 1985 and his case in the suit is that he was initially appointed by the Revenue Commissioner vide order dated 10.2.1948 as writer clerk in the erstwhile Junagadh State, that the Junagadh State merged into Saurashtra State and thereafter in Bombay State and then, the State of Bombay was bifurcated and State of Gujarat came into existence with effect from 1.5.1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. In these cases, while the petitioners have challenged the validity of the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2008 [hereinafter referred to as "the Amending Act, 2008"], sought for a declaration that Sections 67, 73, 73A, 74, 74D, 76, 81 and 81A of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Principal Act"] as amended by the Amending Act, 2008 are unconstitutional and invalid. Prayer has also been made to set aside the guidelines dated 10.7.2007 and 29.4.2008 issued by the Reserve Bank of India [hereinafter referred to as "the RBI"].2. When the matter was taken up on 10.8.2010, Mr SN Soparkar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the RBI, informed that both the guidelines dated 10.7.2007 and 29.4.2008 issued by the RBI have been substituted by fresh guidelines dated 18.6.2008 and all the co-operative societies have been allowed to function as per their Bye-laws.3. An affidavit is also filed on behalf of the 1^s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2009]90SCL1(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The applicant, State Bank of India, has taken out this Judge's Summons making following prayers;(A) The Liquidator of new Gujarat Systhetics Ltd. (In Liqu.), be directed to take possession of piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at Mouje Dariapur Kazipur, City Taluka, bearing Final Plot No. 31 (Original Survey No. 416) of Town Planning Scheme No. 5 Ahmedabad admeasuring 12828 sq. yds. equivalent to 11501 sq. mts. together with constructions thereon which is in unauthorised and illegal occupation and possession of Respondent Nos. 4 to 13.(B) It may be declared that Respondent Nos. 4 to 13 are in unauthorised and illegal occupation of land situate, lying and being at Mouje Dariapur Kazipur, City Taluka, bearing Final Plot No. 31 (Original Survey No. 416) of Town Planning Scheme No. 5 Ahmedabad admeasuring-12818 sq. yds. equivalent to 11501 sq. mts. together with construction standing thereon.(C) It may be declared that Respondent Nos. 4 to 13 are encroachers an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2007CriLJ3958; (2007)3GLR2508
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. Rule is issued in Special Criminal Application No. 1261 of 2005. Ms. Archana C. Raval, learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. Mr. Manish R. Raval, learned Counsel, waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. In Special Criminal Application Nos. 1716 to 1718 of 2005, rule was issued on 13-2-2007 and the respondents are duly served.2. The above numbered petitions have been placed before this Court pursuant to the order dated 27-12-2006 passed by learned single Judge of this Court in Special Criminal Application No. 1261 of 2007, which reads as under:1.0 Ms. Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioner, in support of her case, has placed reliance on following decisions,(A) 'Satishkumar Jayantilal Shah v. State of Gujarat' reported in 1999 DCR 329,(B) 'K.P. Devassy v. The Official Liquidator' reported in 1999 DCR 339.2.0 Having gone through the aforesaid decisions, it appears that the view taken by the respective learned single J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2007]138CompCas204(Guj); [2007]79SCL47(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. This judgement shall dispose of Company Petition Nos. 9 and 10 of 2006. 2. Company Petition No. 10 of 2006 has been filed under Sections 78, 100, 391 and 393 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short) by the Company named Core Healthcare Limited, a company incorporated under the Act in the matter of a composite Scheme of Arrangement in the nature of compromise with the lenders and reconstruction, reorganisation of capital and demerger between Core Healthcare Limited and Nirma Limited and their respective shareholders. The petitioner-Company has prayed for the following reliefs:(a) The Modified Composite Scheme of Arrangement referred to in para-15 of this petition and being Annex. with this petition hereto, be sanctioned by this Hon'ble Court so as to be binding on all Equity Shareholders, Class 'A' Lenders and Class 'B' Lenders of the Petitioner Company and on the Petitioner Company;(b) That the Petitioner Company do within 30 days from the date of sealing of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)2GLR1725
ORDERRavi R. Tripathi, J.1. This matter was heard in the first half. The arguments were not over, it was heard in the second half. The dictation of order was to take some time, hence it was kept at the bottom of the Board. After the other matters were over, the Court has taken up the matter for dictation of the judgment.2. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 11473 of 2006 too has approached this Court through her Power of Attorney Holder. She is the owner of land bearing Block No. 160 of Village Popda, Taluka Ghoriyasi, District Surat. The petitioner in this petition has similar grievance as that of petitioner in SCA No. 11162 of 2006 that in the agricultural land belonging to the petitioner one electric tower/pylon is to be erected. The petitioner through her Power of Attorney submitted her written objections on 8th May 2006. The impugned notice (Annexure 'A' to this petition) was issued on 9th May 2006. Respondent No. 2 replied to the Power of Attorney Holder of the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2006)3GLR2204
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Today, all these applications have been heard and the following order was made:The substitution applications are allowed. Reasons will follow.Accordingly, the reasons are recorded hereinafter.2. All these applications have been filed by different companies seeking substitution of the name of the respective applicant-company in place of Gujarat Electricity Board in the captioned Special Civil Applications and Letters Patent Appeals arising from respective Special Civil Applications. The applicants herein are seeking substitution in place of the original respondents in the main petitions as well as in the Letters Patent Appeals. Admittedly the Letters Patent Appeals have been filed on 20.01.2005 wherein the appellant is shown as Gujarat Electricity Board. The appeals are against common judgment and order dated 17.12.2004 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.1038 of 2004 and cognate matters. The respondents herein are the original petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2005)2GLR993
Jayant Patel, J.1. In all the group of petitions points for which hearing has taken place, are common and therefore they are being dealt with by this common judgment. The contentions as sought to be raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties to the extent they are relevant shall be dealt with hereinafter while dealing with the connected point.2. It appears that the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the New Act') has come into force vide notification, dated 10.6.2003 of the Govt. of India for the whole of the country. However, in the Act itself there are powers with the State Govt as per section 172(b) to declare that any or all the provisions contained in the new Act shall not apply in the State for such period not exceeding six months from the appointed day as may be stipulated in the notification. It further appears that in exercise of aforesaid power for Gujarat State notification, dated 4.6.2003 has been issued by the State Govt dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2005Guj164; (2005)1GLR519
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. A common question of law and facts is involved in all these petitions and therefore all the petitions are considered together and decided by this common judgement.2. The petitioners herein are consumers of Gujarat Electricity Board. They are High Tension Consumers and they have been charged on the basis of tariff applicable to them as HT consumers.2.1 According to the petitioners, the respondent Board issued exhorbitant supplementary bills to the petitioners being differential amount due to revision of tariff on account of change of classification from HTP-I to HTP-II(A). The petitioners were also informed that although original connection was released under HTP-I category, considering the activities carried out by the petitioners in their units, their units would fall under HTP-II(A) category. It appears that the new tariff was introduced with effect from 10.10.2000 and the special bill has been calculated on the basis of new tariff. Therefore, the petitioners herei...
Tag this Judgment!