Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2000Guj30; (1999)3GLR2092
ORDERY.B. Bhatt, J.1. This group of petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment and order inasmuch as there is a common question of law involved. The facts so far as they are relevant and pertinent to the application of the law on the subject are of almost nosignificance.2. These are petitions filed by the State of Gujarat under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in different revision applications. However, all matters have a common root. It appears that the respondents in these group of petitions (the petitioners in revisions before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal) are holders of agricultural land who have acquired such lands by appropriate transfers in their favour, and the mutation entries in their favour have been certified by the competent authority under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.3. After a, long period of time, after the mutation entries in favour of the holders were certified, it appeared...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)2GLR1780
D.N. Patel, J.1. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K. L. Pandya waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Learned Counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 2.This petition has been preferred against the order dated 19th May, 2006 passed by Authorisation Committee as well as against the order dated 21st July, 2006 passed by Appellate Authority, which are at Annexures 'E' and 'G' respectively to the memo of the petition.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner was examined by Muljibhai Patel Urological Hospital and report given by the doctor, to the effect that the petitioner requires kidney transplantation. The kidney of the petitioner was not working properly, and therefore, the petitioner had applied to get kidney from one Vijaykumar Dilipbhai Choksi, who out of love and affection towards the petitioner is ready to donate the kidney to the petitioner and for that ap...
Tag this Judgment!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 : AIR1961Guj151; (1961)2GLR343
Bhagwati, J.1. This Second Appeal raises a question of considerable importance regarding proprietary rights in lands granted by Rulers of Indian States before the merger of those States with the Dominion of India and the effect of the merger on such proprietary rights. Several arguments have been addressed to us relating to different aspects of this question and the arguments have been both able and ingenious. In order to understand and appreciate these arguments, it is necessary to set out the facts giving rise to this appeal. The facts are not many and may be briefly stated as follows:2. Prior to 15th August 1947, the Sant State was an independent native State under the paramountcy of the British Crown. On 15th August 1947, India obtained independence and became a Dominion by reason of the Indian Independence Act, 1947. At the same time, the sovereignty of the British Crown over the Indian States lapsed by reason of Section 7 of that Act and as a result thereof, the Sant State became...
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 : AIR2008Guj94; (2008)3GLR1963; LC2008(2)395; 2008(38)PTC658(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The appellant-Original Plaintiff has filed this Appeal From Order under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the order dated 25th October, 2007 passed in the application Exh. 6/7 filed in Regular Civil Suit No. 2201 of 2007 by the learned (Auxi.) Chamber Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, thereby dismissing the application for temporary injunction.2. Mr. Y.J. Trivedi, learned advocate along with Senior Counsel Mr. Mihir Joshi appears on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Pranav G. Desai appears on Caveat along with Senior Counsel Mr. Mihir J. Thakore on behalf of respondent. With the request of the parties, this Appeal is taken up for final hearing.3. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing pharmaceutical products and some prominent products of the appellant company are;1. MOOV a pain reliever ointment2. Stopache-ache reliever ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : I(1996)ACC45; 1995ACJ714; (1995)1GLR629
J.M. Panchal, J.1. The questions which arise for consideration of the court in the present public interest litigation are: whether a police officer, who has recorded information regarding any accident involving death of or bodily injury to any person, or who has prepared report under Section 158 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, should be directed to forward a copy of the same to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter; and whether the Claims Tribunal should be directed to treat any information or report forwarded to it by the police officer as an application for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? ('Act' for short).2. Mr. Shankarbhai L. Suchday, Notary, District of Kachchh, as well as Mr. Rajesh Premjibhai Thacker and Mr. Urmish S. Suchday, learned advocates, practising at Bhuj-Kachchh, have addressed a letter dated 16.9.1994 to the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court, pointing out that an application for compensation under Section 166(3) of the Act has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2008Guj106; 2008GLH(1)772; (2008)2GLR1128
M.S. Shah, J.1. What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is the show-cause notice dated 14-5-2007 issued by the Collector, Porbandar under the provisions of Clause (h) of Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By the said notice, the petitioner is called upon to show cause why the petitioner should not be removed from the office of Councillor of Porbandar Municipality as the petitioner's third child was born on 16-12-2006 and thus the petitioner has incurred disqualification under the above Clause read with Section 38 which provide that the Councillor who has more than two living children after the period of one year from the date of commencement of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 (which Amendment Act came into force on 4-8-2005) shall be disabled from continuing to be a Councillor and his office shall become vacant. The petitioner has also challeng...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2001(74)ECC51; 2005(179)ELT129(Guj); (2001)4GLR3630; 2006[2]STR300; [2007]7STT29
M.S. Shah, J. 1. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Chartered Accountants' Association and the Gujarat Institute of Civil Engineers and Architects have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 88 of the Finance Act, 1997, and Section 116 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, levying service tax on consulting engineers and architects and also on practising chartered accountants. 2. The Gujarat Institute of Civil Engineers and Architects is a registered association of engineers and architects of Gujarat. It has about 2,600 members and Special Civil Application No. 7220 of 1999 is filed on their behalf. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 in the said petition are consulting engineers and past/present office bearers of the said association. 3. The Chartered Accountants' Association is an association of 1,000 practising chartered accountants in the State of Gujarat. Special Civil Application No. 469 of 1999 is filed by the association on behalf of its members. Petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2008GLH(1)475; (2008)1GLR239
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. Common questions of fact and law arise in the above petitions, and therefore, they are disposed of by the present common judgment.The petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside Criminal Complaint Nos. 1677 of 2006, 1558, 7210, 6534, 6535 of 2005, Criminal Case Nos. 4762, 42, 1707, 1216, 1136, 4656, 1689 of 2006 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 15, Ahmedabad.2. The petitioners are Radiologists possessing requisite qualification and doing practice in Ahmedabad. The petitioners, for the purpose of diagnosis, use Sonography machine in their premises. The competent authority carried out inspection at the respective places and allegedly found certain irregularities. During the diagnosis the petitioners are required to fill up certain forms. The allegation in substance is that certain details were not provided in the proforma. The concerned authority has, therefore, filed complaints against the petitioners for the alleged commission of offences puni...
Tag this Judgment!