Court : Gujarat
Oral Order 1. Heard Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Chaniyara, learned advocate for the respondent No.3, and Mr. Mehta, learned AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:- 47(B) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, and to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 dated 05.12.2014 in Appeal No.83/14, confirming the order passed by the respondent no.3 dated 24.09.2014, suspending the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Mandal. (C) Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the impugned order dated 05.12.2014 passed by the respondent no.2 in Appeal No.83/14, confirming the order passed by the respondent no.3 dated 24.09.2014, suspending the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Order 1. When the matter is called out and taken up for hearing, at the outset, learned AGP has fairly submitted that the issue raised in the petition is already decided by Hon'ble Division Bench vide CAV Judgment dated 3.7.2013 in Special Civil Application No.2113 of 2012. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:- 18-a.That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ or order or direction declaring that the circular dated 30.4.2011 issued by the respondent No.2 is illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act and null and void abinitio. b. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ or order in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing and setting aside the circular dated 30.4.2011 issued by the respondent No.2. ? 3. Thus, the petitioner challenged the legality and propriety of the circular dated 30.4.2015 and prayed that the said circular may be declared ultra vires. 4. Hon'ble Di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Order (1) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the cooption of respondent No.2 as co-opt member of the Dental Faculty of Bhavnagar University. (2) Heard Mr. N.D. Nanavaty, learned Senior Counsel, with Mr. Rushabh Shah and Ms.Avani Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.R. Thacker, with Mr. Shivang A. Thacker, learned counsel for respondent No.1 “University, Mr. Shalin N. Mehta, learned Senior Counsel, with Mr. Hemang Shah, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and Mr. Anshin H. Desai, with Ms. Venu H. Nanavaty, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. (3) The main issue involved in this petition pertains to cooption of respondent No.2 as a member of the Dental Faculty of the respondent “University. It appears from the record of the petition that vide Notification dated 12.07.2011, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: Akil Kureshi, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in Sessions Case No.151/2010. The accused was charged with offences punishable under sections 376 and 506(2) of the IPC. He was convicted for the said offences. For offence under section 376, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. For offence under section 506(2), he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. Fine was also imposed. Accused has challenged his conviction in Criminal Appeal No.863/2012. The State seeking enhancement of sentence has filed Criminal Appeal No.224/2012. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution version was that Radha, daughter of the accused and the victim studied in the same school. In the month of February 2009, the victim had gone to the house of her friend Radha for studying. The accused sent his daughter away for some errand and when he and the victim were alone, after closing the front door of the house, r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. As all the appeals arise from the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, they are being considered simultaneously. 2. We may also record that for the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the employee union shall be referred to as the union/employees and the employer ONGC Ltd. shall be referred to as ONGC/employer. 3. The short facts of the case appear to be that ONGC had sanctioned post of about more than 800 in numbers, however, for the mode of recruitment, it appears that ONGC called for the names from the Employment Exchange instead public advertisement in the newspaper. When the names were called for from the Employment Exchange for the posts in question, it was provided for a term of four years. It appears that thereafter, the interview call letters were issued and after conducting the interviews, the Appointment Orders were issued as per the inter se merit of the available candidates. It appears that the terms and conditions at the time of appointment to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Cav Judgment: 1. Rule. Mr. Varun Patel, Ld. Advocate waives service of rule for the respondent. 2. The applicant being original respondent in the main petition, has prayed for an order to direct the opponent company to pay wages under section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act [for short the Act'] from the date of the award impugned in the main petition till the final disposal of the petition. 3. On perusal of the entire record, the factual details transpired are as under : 3.1 The applicant herein was dismissed from services on 1/9/2001 after holding departmental inquiry because of his unauthorized absence from the work place so as to carry out his personal business and other acts of insubordination. 3.2 The Reference [LCA] No. 1456/2001 was filed for reinstatement with full back wages. On 25/6/2007 such Reference was allowed directing reinstatement with 75% back wages. 3.3 On 25/9/2007 main petition was filed wherein on 13/12/2007 notice was issued and ad-interim stay of the award w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Cav Judgment: Paresh Upadhyay, J. 1. The point for consideration before this specially constituted Bench is as to whether the Gujarat State Social Welfare Board is a Statewithin the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Reference is made to this Bench by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.07.2014. 2. Since it is the question noted above, which only needs to be answered by this Bench, the merits of the petition, which is dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of that being not maintainable, need not be gone into and therefore whether to grant any relief to the petitioners would be left to the Division Bench which is seized of the Letters Patent Appeal, however, for the limited purpose, as to under what circumstances the reference is made, the following aspects are noted. 3.1 The petitioners, who are working with the Gujarat State Social Welfare Board, asked for uniform implementation of the Government Resolution dated 13.03.1995, for all the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Cav Judgment: Ravi R. Tripathi, J. 1. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, the matter is heard for final disposal. 2. The matter is placed before this Court pursuant to an order passed by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice on office submission on 01.12.2014. The office made submission inviting attention of the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice to an order passed by the Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Mr.V.M.Sahai and Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.P.Dholaria. The Court passed order on 01.12.2014, relevant part of which is quoted in the office submission, which reads as under:- As per the first proviso to sub-Rule (2) of Rule 7(B), the petitioners have not applied for admission to the Admission Committee. In our opinion, if the Rule is not complied with by the students, first proviso to sub-Rule (2) of Rule 7(B) of the Gujarat Diploma in General and Midwifery (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) (Amendment) Rules, 2012 debars the stud...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
M.R. Shah, J. 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - assessee has prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or direction to quash and set aside the impugned notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 27/3/2014 for the A.Y. 2007-2008. Thus, the petitioner has challenged reopening proceedings of the assessment for A.Y. 2007-2008 initiated in exercise of powers under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Facts leading to the present Special Civil Application in nutshell are as under :- 2.1That the petitioner is a Company engaged in I.T. Enabled Services and Software Development. The petitioner filed its return of income for A.Y. 2007-2008 on 21/10/2007 declaring total income at Rs.5,52,52,210/-. 2.2 That the case was selected for scrutiny and notices under section 142(1) and under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act were issued and served upon the petitioner - assessee. It appears that in the notice dated 12/11/2010...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: (Jayant Patel, J.) 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MACP No.475/98, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.16,88,560/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. The short facts of the case appear to be that on 30.12.1997 at about 10.45 p.m., near Saiyadpar at Bhuj-Anjar Highway road when the deceased Navinbhai, while driving the Jeep bearing Registration No.GUX 8547, was going towards Gandhidham, one Luxury Bus bearing Registration No.GJ12T 4178 came from the opposite direction with excessive speed and dashed with the jeep. Resultantly, the accident occurred and the deceased Navinbhai sustained injuries with the other persons, who were also injured in the accident. The claim petition was filed by the dependent members of the family of deceased Navinbhai for the compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- being MACP No.475/98. It may be recorded that the other claim petitions were also filed by the other injure...
Tag this Judgment!