Gujarat Court July 1980 Judgments
Narsinh Revaji Ayachi and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-31-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR234
S.H. Sheth, J.1. Two petitioners who are father and son have made this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for obtaining an order of anticipatory bail. The record discloses that petitioner No. 1 is accused of having committed murder of one Vira Ibrahim and he is going to be charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure expressly provides that an accused shall not be released if there appears reasonable ground for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There is no doubt about the fact that petitioner No. 1 has been charged with an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, under Sub-section (1) of Section 437, he is not entitled to bail unlike any other offender. See. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not make any express or specific reference to an offence punishable with dea...
Tag this Judgment!Maheboobbhai Jalalbhai Shaikh Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-29-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR162
S.H. Sheth, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner who is owning a cinema house at Kheda challenges the Bombay Cinema (Gujarat Amendment) Rules, 1979, Cinema houses in this State are regulated by the Bombay Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1953. Under that Act, Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954 have been made. The Act and the rules contemplate two kinds of cinemas--permanent cinemas and touring cinemas. By amendments made in 1979 to the Bombay Cinema Rules, a third kind of cinema house has been permitted to be established. It is 'Janata cinema'. Rule 2(ddd) defines 'Janata Cinema' in the following terms: 'Janata Cinema' means a cinema erected after the commencement of the Bombay Cinema (Gujarat Amendment) Rules, 1979 and located in a village or a town the population of which as ascertained at the last preceding census is not more than 30, 000.2. This definition makes it clear beyond any doubt that in small towns and villages having population of not more than 30, 000, Government has planned the encoura...
Tag this Judgment!Motibhai Panchabhai Khristi Vs. Maganbhai Desaibhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-25-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR107
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. This special civil application has been preferred to a larger Beach for resolving the controversy arising out of conflicting views expressed by M.P. Thakkar, J. in Bhailalbhai Gonrdbhai v. Bai Nandubha wdlo Gulabsing Mohansing reported in 18 G.L.R. 901 and N.H. Bhatt, J. in Nalbiibhai Gandabhai v. Bhagubhai Ichubhai reported in 21 G.L.R. 366, regarding the interpretation of Section 32(1B) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act').2. M.P. Thakkar, J. has taken the view that the provisions of this section enure for the benefit of heirs of a deceased tenant and that such heirs can apply under Section 32(IB) for necessary reliefs; while N.H. Bhatt, J. has taken a contrary view.3. This petition earlier reached final hearing before B.K. Mehta, J. who was not inclined to agree with the view expressed by N.H. Bhatt, J. and hence, B.K. Mehta, J. directed the matter to be placed before the learned Chief Justice for r...
Tag this Judgment!Major I.N. Maligi Vs. Director General, N.C.C. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-24-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR79
B.K. Mehta, J.1. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who was re-employed in the National Cadet Corps (hereinafter called 'the NCC' for sake of brevity) on whole times basis as Administrative Officer after his release from emergency commission service in the Army, has challenged the order of termination of August 29, 1975 issued by the Deputy Director of the National Cadet Corps as well as the order of March 8, 1977 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence, approving non-extension of the services of the petitioner. A few facts need be noticed in order to appreciate the challenge to these two impugned orders.2. The petitioner was granted short term emergency commission in Artillery of Indian Army in 1963. He was released from emergency commission service with effect from October 1, 1967. It appears that he was selected for the grant of Commission in NCC by the Government of India under Section 9 of t...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnubhai Natwarlal Patel and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-23-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR189
S.H. Sheth, J.1. This petition has been filed by eight petitioners who are voters at the elections to Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Notification dated March 20, 1980 issued by the Government of Gujarat is challenged by them. It relates to the division of two existing wards and the reallocation of seats to them.2. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, the State Government has got the authority to decide how many councillors shall be elected from each of the election wards. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 5, the State Government has the power to specify the number and boundaries of the wards into which the city shall be divided for the purpose of election of the councillors and to determine the number of councillors to be elected from each ward.3. What the State Government by issuing the impugned notification has done is as follows. The Municipal Corporation shall consist of 105 councillors elected at ward elections. Secondly it ...
Tag this Judgment!Cama Hotels Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-23-1980
Reported in: (1980)21GLR913
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. Litigation may or not be a luxury for some. This litigation is in any case about 'luxuries'. The constitutional validity of a tax on luxuries provided in a hotel such as air-conditioning, television, channel music, personal telephone etc. is challenged by hotel owners who have to collect the tax from their customers availing of such luxuries.2. A Public Limited Company engaged in the business of running Hotels at Ahmedabad - Cama Hotels Ltd., petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1263/78, and three Private Limited Companies engaged in the same business at Baroda, have instituted four allied petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in order to challenge the constitutional validity of the Gujarat Tax on Luxuries (Hotels and Lodging Houses) Act, 1977 mainly on the ground that the State Legislature has no legal competence to enact the legislation in question under Entry 62 of List II of Schedule VII to the Constitution of India and on some other gro...
Tag this Judgment!Padmavati Jaykrishna Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-17-1980
Reported in: (1980)19CTR(Guj)123; [1981]131ITR653(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. In this case, at the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred to us for our opinion :-' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the interest deficit to the extent of Rs. 8,666 was not deductible while determining the total income '2. The facts leading to the present reference are as follows :We are concerned with the assessment year 1969-70, the previous year being calendar year 1968, ending on December 31, 1968. The assessee is assessed in the status of an individual. Before the ITO, she claimed a deduction on account of interest deficit of Rs. 33,516. According to her, the interest was paid to Harivallabhdas Kalidas Estate in respect of borrowings made by the assessee not only in the past, but also during the current year. The withdrawals were utilised partly for investment in shares, etc., and partly for meeting personal liabilities like payment of income-tax, annuity deposit and househ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Hiraben Mahendraprasad and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-16-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Guj84; (1981)0GLR639
ORDER1. This is a revision application filed by the State of Gujarat being aggrieved by an order dated 20th Aug., 1979 passed by Mr. R. K. Abichandani, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, The order has been passed below Ex, 35 in the Civil Suit No. 2776 of 1977 pending in that court .The said suit has been filed by present respondent No .1 Hiraben for getting her share in some immovable property situated in the city of Amendment.2. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 who are the defendants Nos. 1and 2 in that suit inter alia contended that the suit was not properly valued for the purpose of court-fees and that adequate court-fees were not Paid. The plaintiff gave application, Ex. 35 requesting the learned Judge that as a dispute was raised about the adequacy or otherwise of the court-fees, the inspector of court-fees obviously appointed under - Section 12 of the Bombay Court-fees Act. 1959 by the State of Gujarat should be asked to verify whether the valuation was correct or not...
Tag this Judgment!Thakorbhai Dajibhiki Desai Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-16-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Guj189; (1980)1GLR808
Thakkar, J.1. 'Undue hardship' (not mere hardship, undue hardship), an impression occurring in Section 20(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, which has been enacted inter alia to prevent concentration of urban lands in few hands and to secure its equitable distribution, has given rise lo the controversy which is in the center in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said provision empowers the State Government to grant exemption from operation of Chapter III of the Act to a holder of vacant land in excess of the ceiling in case the State Government is satisfied that 'undue hardship would be caused to him. 'Indebtedness' of a holder of land without anything more entitles a holder of excess land to claim exemption under the said provision in view of Odhavji Narsi v. State of Gujarat, (1976) 17 Guj LR 259, contends the petitioner. The learned Chief Justice before whom the matter came up for admission, being unable to agree with th...
Tag this Judgment!Narendrakumar Chandulal and ors. Vs. Chanchalgauri Ramanlal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-14-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR826
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 1157 of 1974.2. The suit was filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for a permanent injunction restraining original defendants, who are appellants in this appeal, from selling, transferring or dealing with in any manner the suit plot, which according to them was of their co-ownership and was reserved for the benefit of all the co-owners. The defendants claim that they are owners or in any case by adverse possession have become owners of the suit plot. Various issues were raised by the trial Court; and one of the issues was whether the suit was bad for non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties? The trial Court held in favour of the plaintiffs on merits, but then held that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and hence dismissed the suit. Though the suit was dismissed, because of adverse findings on merits, (he defendants have filed this appeal. A...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »