Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1994)2GLR1456
Shah, J.1. Rule. Mr. S. N. Shelat, waives service of rue on behalf of respondents. With the Consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, the mattes were finally heard in December, 1993 and are now being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. These three petitions are field by three different officers, then serving in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited (I.P.C.L.) challenging the action of the respondent Corporation in rejecting the request of each petitioner to extend and grant the benefits of Voluntary Retirement Scheme and for is suance of further direction to the respondent Corporation to make payment of such benefits. At the outset it must be noted that neither in the memo of original petition not by further challenges introduced way of amendment of the petitioner, the legality or validity of any of the provisions of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme or subsequent guidelines or policy prescribed for applicability of such scheme, is challenged. The challenges cen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1995]84CompCas230(Guj)
S.D. Shah, J.1. Mafatlal Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'MIL' for brevity) is the transferee company, which has moved this petition for sanction of this court to the scheme of amalgamation of Mafatlal Fine Spinning and . (hereinafter referred to as 'MFL' for brevity), the transferor company under section 391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. * * * * 2. The transferor company, MFL, is proposed to be amalgamated with the petitioner company under the following circumstances and for the following reasons : (1) The proposed amalgamation will pave the way for better, more efficient and economic control in the running of operations. (2) Economies in administrative and management costs will improve in combined profitability. (3) The amalgamated company will have the benefit of the combined reserves, manufacturing assets, manpower and cash flows of the two companies. The combined technological, managerial and financial resources are expected to enhance the capability of the amalg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1996(81)ELT453(Guj); (1995)1GLR518
1. These two appeals, first one an appeal for the enhancement of sentence by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Kandla (Original Complainant), preferred before this Court, and second one by the Sumhadi Bin Maoris (the original accused No. 3) before the Sessions Court. Kachchh, at Bhuj (subsequently transferred to this Court), are directed against the common judgment and order, dated 3-12-1992 rendered in C. C. No. 2836 of 1991 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kachchh, at Bhuj, wherein three respondents, namely, Wong Ah Boo, Asmi Firmanto, Sumhadi Bin Maoris who came to be tried for the alleged offences punishable under Section 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b), 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, under Section 5(1) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and under Section 120(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on their pleading guilty to the charge were convicted for the same and sentenced to undergo sentence of various rigorous imprisonments and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1996Guj5; (1996)1GLR147
ORDERN.N. Mathur, J. 1. By way of this Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek direction to quash and set aside the orders dated 22-2-1984 and 30-9-1994 passed by the District Judge, Vadodara below Exhibits 135 and 161 respectively in Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 1977. 2. The facts culled out from various documents filed with the present Special Civil Application are as follows: The Gujarat State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'GSFC') applied to the District Judge, Vadodara under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act of 1951') for recovery of Rs. 9,81,190.24 by sale of movable and immovable properties pledged, mortgaged and hyothecated by the petitioners to secure repayment of the amount of Rs. 7,76,000/-advanced by the GSFC. Paras 9 and 10 of the claim application are extracted as follows: '9. The opponents have committed breach of the aforesaid agreement by committi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1996)1GLR692; (1996)IILLJ943Guj
S.M. Soni, J.1. Criminal Case No. 99 of 1988 came to be filed by Shop Inspector, Jetpur Nagarpalika, Jetpur against the present applicant for breach of the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 ('the State Act' for short). The breach alleged was that the registration of the firm is not renewed, muster roll is not maintained; earned leave card or register is not maintained; board showing Sunday as weekly holiday is to exhibited and also precise provisions of the State Act are not exhibited. The applicant-accused pleaded not guilty and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class after hearing the parties held the accused guilty, of the alleged offences and imposed fine of Rs. 25/- on each count and in default two days simple imprisonment by his judgment and order of 12-3-1992. The applicant accused being aggrieved by the same preferred an appeal no. 19 of 1992 which was heard and decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal on 12-5-1992 who by his judgment and o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1995)2GLR1917
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. 'What indeed is 'THE DUTY' of the Court entertaining maintenance application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, towards the destitute dependants, viz., wives, children, parents, (as the case may be) claiming maintenance from the persons who are legally bound to maintain them, and for that purpose even the interim maintenance for their immediate survival?' This in substance is the most urgent, pressing question calling upon this Court to answer in the right earnest and thereby impress upon the concerned learned Magistrates as regards the imperative need to be on alert and active enough on their part to the immediate dire needs of the claimants struggling hard for their survival!! In other words, to make them conscious towards the question of basic human rights of the weakest and unenviable persons involved, to command and commission them as service oriented, indoctrinating them that they were the 'welfare trustees' of destitute wives, children and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1996CriLJ994; (1995)2GLR1666
M.N. Mathur, J.1. This Misc. Civil Application (for contempt) has been filed on 16-10-1991 by the petitioners namely; (1) J. A. Goraswa and (2) R. B. Shukla against Director General and Inspector General of Police, Gujarat State and State of Gujarat.2. The say of the petitioners is that they were serving as Head Constables in the Police Force of the respondents and they had appeared for the written test and oral test for the purpose of promotion to post of Police Sub-Inspectors. They had passed the written test but failed in the oral test. Therefore, they approached this Court by way of filing Special Civil Applications which were decided by the Court (Coram: R.J. Shah, J.) by a common judgment dated 27-10-1989. This Court issued certain directions to the respondents to be carried out within a specified time. A copy of the judgment has been annexed with this Application and marked as Annexure 'A'. It is further casually stated by the petitioners that 'it seems against the aforesaid jud...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1995)2GLR1210
B.N. Kirpal, C.J.1. Large scale pollution of the Kharicut Canal and the areas at least in the immediate vicinity thereof by some of the industrial units, which are now within the Ahmedabad Municipal limits, and the inaction of the Government Authorities in taking any effective steps to control it has led to the filing of the present writ petition. As we shall presently see, it is as if a Chemical War has been launched by some industrial units, against Man and Nature.2. The two petitioners are agriculturists having agricultural land in Kheda District. In this petition, which has also been termed as 'a public interest litigation', it is alleged that the industries which have been set up in the industrial estates at Naroda, Vatva and Odhav in Ahmedabad are discharging their polluted effluents into Kharicut Canal which, in turn, leads to Khari river. It is further alleged that there are about 11 villages in Kheda District, whose only source of water for the purposes of agriculture is from ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1996)1GLR382
B.C. Patel, J.1. By way of Public Interest Litigation, in these two petitions, the petitioners have challenged the action of the State Government in reducing the limit of Narayan Sarovar Sanctuary in view of the Resolution dated 24th July, 1995 delimiting the area of 'Narayan Sarovar Chinkara Sanctuary' on the ground that the said action is unfair, bad in law, illegal and suffering from non-application of mind and would amount to by-passing the judgment and order rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application Nos. 13139 of 1993, 6061 of 1994 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 197 of 1994. The State Government altered the boundary of the sanctuary in accordance with the Resolution dated 24th July, 1995 passed by the Legislative Assembly under Section 26-A(3) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are briefly narrated hereinbelow:2. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 18(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the State Govern...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1996)1GLR812
S.M. Soni, J.1. Petitioners, Party-in-Person, have prayed for taking necessary action under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act against the respondents for alleged deliberate and wilful non-compliance of the order of the Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short), confirmed by the High Court.2. Few facts necessary to appreciate the contentions raised are as under:One Sanghvi Education Trust, of which respondent No. 2 is the Managing Trustee, is running Sanghvi Primary School, of which respondent No. 1 is the Principal. Principal and Managing Trustee is the same person, viz. Mr. Dineshbhai N. Sanghvi. Respondent No. 3 is the District Education Officer for the city of Ahmedabad. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are serving in the said school as Assistant Teachers. Said school is a recognised one under the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947. The management of the said school is liable to pay salary to its teachers, as per the pay and allowances declared for them by the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!