Court : Gujarat
1. The Petitioner is a foreign company based in Canada and has set up a project office in India with the permission of Reserve Bank of India. The Petitioner is subject to income tax in India in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax laws in India. The Petitioner is engaged in exploration, development and production of mineral oil and natural gas. The Petitioner has been awarded the right to explore, develop and produce mineral oil in various blocks. For this purpose, the Petitioner has entered into what is known as "Production Sharing Contract" (for short the PSC) with the Government of India for exploration, development and production of "mineral oil". The PSC specifies the area over which the Petitioner has been given such rights. PSC defines the Contract Area as a Block. One such PSC was entered into on 23rd September, 1994 and another on 17th July, 2001 for the exploration, development and production of mineral oil in the Hazira and Surat block respectively. The Petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The Petitioner is a foreign company based in Canada and has set up a project office in India with the permission of Reserve Bank of India. The Petitioner is subject to income tax in India in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax laws in India. The Petitioner is engaged in exploration, development and production of mineral oil and natural gas. The Petitioner has been awarded the right to explore, develop and produce mineral oil in various blocks. For this purpose, the Petitioner has entered into what is known as "Production Sharing Contract" (for short the PSC) with the Government of India for exploration, development and production of "mineral oil". The PSC specifies the area over which the Petitioner has been given such rights. PSC defines the Contract Area as a Block. One such PSC was entered into on 23rd September, 1994 and another on 17th July, 2001 for the exploration, development and production of mineral oil in the Hazira and Surat block respectively. The Petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Cav Judgment: 1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-original accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the first information report registered with the Athvalines Police Station, Surat City, vide I C.R. No.47 of 2012 of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and also the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Agency in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat. 2. The respondent No.2-original first informant although served with the Notice issued by this Court, dated 13th October, 2014 for final disposal yet has chosen not to appear either in person or through an advocate. This application has gone unopposed so far as the first informant is concerned. 3. The case of the prosecution may be summarized as under:- 3.1. The first informant and the applicant herein were serving with the Tata AIG Life Insurance Company at Surat. The first informa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Common Cav Judgment Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ. 1. All these Special Civil Applications were heard analogously as in all these matters, the questions that had arisen for consideration were whether the provisions contained in section 2 (1)(o) of the Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as the Securitisation Act or SARFAESI Act] and clause 2.1 of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India known as Prudential Norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning “ pertaining to Advances are ultra vires the Constitution of India, and, consequently, the actions taken by various Banks concerned under the Securitisation Act are illegal and without authority of law. 2. We, however, propose to treat the Special Civil Application No. 14908 of 2012 as the lead matter. 3. The case made out by the petitioners in SCA No. 14908 of 2012 may be summed up thus: [a]. The petitioners are the b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
J.B. Pardiwala, R. Tripathi, Jayant Patel, M.R. Shah and A.G. Uraizee, JJ. This batch of Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been placed before this Special Bench pursuant to the order passed by the Honble the Chief Justice on a reference made by a Division Bench first in point of time on 13th August 2013 while hearing a Letters Patent Appeal No.596 of 2008 arising from a judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.408 of 1993. It appears that the need to refer the matter to a Larger Bench necessitated since the Referring Bench noticed a conflict between the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Revaben Wd/o Ambalal Motibhai, and others v. Vinubhai Purshottambhai Patel and others, reported in 2013(1) GLH 440, and a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dilavarsinhsinh Khodubha Jadeja v. The State of Gujarat and others, reported in 1995(1) GLH 58. In such circumstances referred to ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. This appeal under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of an unsuccessful applicant of a Special Civil Application and is directed against the judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 24/9/2013 by which His Lordship rejected the writ application. 2. It appears from the materials on record that the appellant herein was appointed on 16/11/1987 by the Sports Authority of Gujarat as a Coach. Between 1989 and 1994 the appellant worked at the Regional Coach Center under the Senior Coach as an Athletic Coach at Ahmedabad. Between 1994 and 1999 the appellant worked as an Athletic Coach under the Senior Coach at Nadiad Coaching Center of the respondent authorities. Between 1999 and 2002 the appellant worked as an Athletic Coach under the Senior Coach at District Patan. Between 2002 and June, 2011 he worked as a Coach at Khokhara Coaching Center. Between June, 2011 and till the date of his superannuation i.e. 24th September, 2013...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ. 1. All these three Special Civil Applications were taken up and heard together as a common question of law is involved in all these matters, viz. whether Section 66(1) (b) of the Factories Act, 1948 [the Act hereafter] and it s proviso are ultra vires the Constitution of India being violative of Articles 14, 15, 16, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. 1.1 In Special Civil Application No. 11533 of 2013, an additional, alternative prayer has been made for a direction upon the State-respondent to issue appropriate notification as provided in the proviso to sub-section (b) of Section 66(1) of the Act enabling the petitioners to permit / employ women employees to work up to 10.00 p.m. 2. The facts stated in Special Civil Application No. 2984 of 2012 may be summarized thus: 2.1 The petitioner is a Public Charitable Trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and is engaged in the activity of upliftment of women and is active...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is filed by original defendant No.1 State of Gujarat against whom as well as against respondent No.2, respondent no.1 herein original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 67 of 1995 for declaration that the plaintiff is the Indian Citizen and continued to be the Indian Citizen until the defendants get decision against the plaintiff under section 9(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act (herein after referred to as the Act) and also praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from deporting the plaintiff till the defendants get such decision from the Central Government under section 9(2) of the Act. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was born in Godhra, District Panchmahals on 25.4.1945 and his parents were also born in Godhra. It is averred that on 24.4.1950, the plaintiff was admitted in Saifiya Madaresa and studied there till 5th standard and thereafter, was admitted in Iqbal Union High School on 20.6.1956 and passed SSC E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") is filed by the applicants for seeking anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest for non-bailable offence punishable under Sections 395, 365, 506, 294 (KH) of Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of Bombay Police Act.2. As per the case of the complainant who is studying and also a friend of accused No.1, on 17.3.2011 called accused No.1 and Rakesh to settle the dispute amicably at Havmor Restaurant, Nr. Vastrapur Lake, Ahmedabad and accused No.1 was present along with two other unknown persons in his car and complainant was forcibly asked to sit in the car and the said car was driven and the complainant was beaten by all of them and golden chain and bracelet were snatched away and thereafter the complainant was kicked and beaten and dropped at a distant place.2.1. In the above backdrop of the allegations the applicants preferred anticipatory bail application before learned Sessions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)3GLR1982
J.R. Vora, J.1. Both the instant Appeals are preferred by the appellants under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to read with Section 36B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.D.P.S. Act') against the judgment and Order rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, on 28th of January, 2004, in Sessions Case No. 143 of 2000 and Sessions Case No. 295 of 2000, whereby the present appellant Smt. Najmunisha, wife of Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu, accused No. 1, came to be convicted by the trial Court, for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) to read with Section 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 30,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of one year. Though, she was also found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act, but no separate sentence was imp...
Tag this Judgment!