Gujarat Court May 1978 Judgments
Sankalchand Valjibhai Patel Vs. J.P. Chavda and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-31-1978
Reported in: (1979)1GLR17
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. A citizen who was arrested by a police officer has approached this Court by way of the present petition and has made very serious allegations against the concerned police officer. A notice pending admission was issued and the officer concerned was directed to produce the petitioner in person before the Court. The learned Public Prosecutor was asked in what proceeding and under what provision the petitioner had been arrested. The learned Public Prosecutor after taking instructions from respondent No. 1, the P.S.I., who has made the arrest, stated that a private complaint had been lodged against the petitioner in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court and that the Magistrate concerned had directed the police officer to make investigation in respect of the complaint under Sub-section (1) of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 (Code).2. The question that has surfaced in the back drop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances is: when upon re...
Tag this Judgment!Ambaben and ors. Vs. Usmanbhai Amirmiya Shaikh and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Guj9; (1978)GLR1134; (1978)GLR913
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. This matter has been placed before the Full Bench in pursuance of the following order passed by a Division Bench consisting one of us (A. D. Desai~ J-) and N. H. Bhatt, J. an October 14, 1977. The order is in these terms:'Refer to Full Bench as the decision of this Court in (1974) 15 Cut LR 428 is admittedly toned down by the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1977 SC 1785 and the question raised is an important and arises in many pending cases'.The question that arose for consideration before the Division Bench consisting of J. B. Melita and S. H. Sheth, JJ. in Sakinabibi V. Cordhanbhai Prabhudas (1974) 15 Guj LR 428 was in connection with the Provisions of Section 95 (1) (b) read with Section 95 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939) and Rule 118 of the Motor Vehicles Rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act. The same question was considered by the Supreme Court in Pushpabsi v. Ranjit G. & P CO, : [1977]3SCR372 .2. Section 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act (herein...
Tag this Judgment!Haryant C. Shelat and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-03-1978
Reported in: (1978)19GLR970
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The petitioners herein challenge the appointment of the second respondent by the State Government as Vice-Chancellor of the Gujarat Agricultural University. The petitioners state-that they are vitally interested in ensuring proper constitution of the various authorities of the Gujarat Agricultural University and proper appointment of the Vice-Chancellor. The facts leading to this litigation are not in dispute. The second respondent, Ishwarbhai Jivabhai Patel who has been working as the Vice-Chancellor of the Gujarat University since last many years as been appointed as Vice-Chancel lor of the Gujarat Agricultural University by the State Government. The second respondent was born on November 2, 1914; and hence he was clearly more than 62 years of age on January 31,1978 when he was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the Gujarat Agricultural University. The second respondent assumed the office of Vice-Chancellor of the Gujarat Agricultural University on February 1 1978. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Maganlal Lalbha Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Guj43
ORDER1-7. xx xx xx xx xx 8. So far as the first contention raised by Mr. Vyas is concerned, it requires the examination of subsection (5) of S. 294 and S. 305. Subsection (5) of S. 294 provides as follows:'An officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order, shall in respect of a district panchayat, have the same powers as the District Development Officer has in respect of a taluka Panchayat under this section'.It is, therefore, necessary to see what powers the. District Development Officer has in respect of a taluka Panchayat under S. 294. Sub-section (4) of Section 294 which deals with this question provides as follows:'The District Development Officer in respect of a Taluka Panchayat or Nagar Panchayat shall have the same powers as Taluka Development Officer has in respect of a gram panchayat under sub-secs. (1), (2) and (3) subject to the modification that he shall submit a report under subsection (3) to the State Government. The State Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!Amul Ramchandra Gandhi Vs. Abhasbhai Kasambhai Diwan and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Guj14
P.D. Desai, J.1. x x x x x x x x x 2. The claim for compensation arose out of an accident which occurred on July 10, 1975 at about 11-45 A.M. behind Nyaya Mandir on the Madan Zampa Road in the city of Baroda. The appellant-claimant, who was at the material time aged about 12, was at that time returning from his school. Two of his friends accompanied him. The appellant was proceeding along the road from north to south. A truck bearing No. GTG 1100, which was proceeding in the same direction, approached from behind and knocked down the appellant. The right foot of the appellant was crushed under the front left wheel of the vehicle. The appellant was immediately removed to the S. S. G. Hospital, Baroda where an examination, it was found that as a result of the injuries the bones, muscles and tissues of the light foot were crushed. Operation was performed on the same day and the right foot of the appellant was amputated from above the ankle. The appellant was discharged from the hospital o...
Tag this Judgment!Abdulali Yusufali Vs. Abdulhusan Taiyabali Dhalria and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-1978
Reported in: (1978)19GLR1038
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioner is the original complainant who filed Criminal Case No. 246 of 1975 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhoraji, against the accused. He alleged that the accused had committee offences punishable under Section 341 read with Section 114 and Section 500 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondents nos. 1 to 5 are the accused. Original accused no. I could not be served with the process of the Court inspite of several attempts which were made to serve him. He was, therefore, dropped from the case. On 24th February, 1976, the complainant made an application to the learned Magistrate in which he prayed that amongst others Vada Mullaji of Dawoodi Vohra community should be summoned to give evidence. No objection was raised to that application at that stage. The learned Magistrate granted that application by his order dated 24th February 1976. On 8th March, 1977 the accused made an application to the learned Magistrate in which they s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›