Gujarat Court November 1981 Judgments
Bharatkumar Jaymanishanker Mehta Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-19-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1314; (1982)1GLR605
ORDERS.L. Talati, J.1 to 10 xx xx xx XX XX XX XX11. It may be stated that in a criminal case whether it be under the Prevention of Corruption Act or under the Penal Code, the burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt is always on the prosecution, It is true that after it is established that the accused accepted the amount, presumption Under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act would arise. But for the purpose of coming to the conclusion as to whether the accused accepted the amount or not, the totality of the evidence led at the trial is required to be appreciated. The prosecution evidence alone cannot be considered for the purpose of coming to the conclusion as to whether the accused accepted the amount or not. The evidence led by the prosecution, the suggestions made by the defence in cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the version given by the defence and the defence witnesses., if any, examined at the trial, every 'thing is required o be considered ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaysinh Mohansinh Solanki Vs. the Transport Manager, Ahmedabad Munic ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-18-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Guj307; (1982)1GLR639
1. to 6. x x x 7. In order to appreciate this contention, the legal aspect of the problem deserves to be noted. Under Section 14 of the Contract Act, a consent is said to be not free if it is caused by coercion, undue influence, etc. and it has been provided there that consent can be said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, etc. In my view, the word 'cause' is highly connotative. Even if there be undue influence or coercion, but if it does not appear that it was instrumental in making the promisor to do the act in question, the existence of coercion, etc. would be of no avail. The word 'cause' is not a term of art, but it is a term of science. Nothing can be said to be the cause of a particular effect, unless it is the proximate and immediate cause of that effect. When a particular effect is said to be caused by a particular factor, it must be clearly and cogently established that the effect is the direct outcome of...
Tag this Judgment!C.J. Thakor Vs. Ahmedabad District Panchayat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-18-1981
Reported in: (1982)2GLR22
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The petitioners in this group of writ petitions brought under Article 226 of the Constitution were appointed as Gram Sevaks by direct recruitment by the respective panchayats on purely ad hoc and temporary basis. By Rule 3 of the Gujarat District Panchayat Service Selection Committee (Functions) Rules, 1964 when recruitment to the post mentioned in the Schedule is to be made by direct recruitment, the panchayat concerned is required to intimate to the District Panchayat Service Selection Committee the number of vacancies, which are to be filled in or which are likely to arise; and on receipt of such a requisition the Selection Committee is required to follow the procedure laid down in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 for the purposes of selecting the candidates for appointment as Gram Sevaks. In the Schedule appended to the said Rules reference to the post of Gram Sevaks is made at Item No. 7.2. In other words, the post of Gram Sevaks can be filled in by direct selection throug...
Tag this Judgment!Shantilal Manibhai Patel and ors. Vs. Laxmi Film Laboratory and Studio ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-13-1981
Reported in: [1984]56CompCas110(Guj); (1982)2GLR363
Ahmadi, J. 1. Messrs. Laxmi Film Laboratory and Studios P. Ltd., came to be incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on August 12, 1956, with the authorised capital of Rs. 15,000 divided into 10,000 equity shares of Rs. 100 each and 5,000 cumulative preference share of Rs. 100 each. It issued subscried and paid up capital is Rs. 7,50,000 divided into 5,000 equity share of Rs. 100 each and 2,500 cumulative preference shares of Rs. 100 each. The company claims to be the pioneer of the film industry in the State of Gujarat and is credited to have established the first film in this sutido in this state. The main objects of the company as enumerated in its memorandum of association are,inter alia, to erect, construct, purchased by contract or otherwise, acquire, from Alkapuri Studios or others completes right and title in respect of no objections a certificate or any certificate relating to licence or licences for studio- laboratories, etc., to let out and maintain and conduct the necessa...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Mangabhai Jethabhai Vaghela and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-13-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1317
ORDERS.L. Talati, J.1 and 2 x x x x.3. The prosecution case is that the respondent at the relevant time was serving as police constable at Mandal Police station in Viramgam Taluka. P, W. L Jehaji Ajuji was the resident of Mandal. According to the prosecution1 case, the respondent accused approached Jehaji and told him that he was dealing in illicit liquor and, therefore, should pay him an instalment of Rs. 100/- per month. On this demand being made P. W, 1, Jehaji told the accused that he was a poor person and was not dealing in liquor and, therefore, it was not proper for him to pay him anything. Thereafter on that very day the complaint Under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act was filed against the complainant. He was arrested and released on bail. The accused had also asked the complainant as to when he would pay him the amount and he had ultimately told him that he would pay the amount within a day or two. The accused told him to keep the amount ready and that he would ...
Tag this Judgment!Ranchhodbhai Somabhai and anr. Vs. Babubhai Bhailalbhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-12-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Guj308
1. Near Champaner Darwaja in the City of Baroda, on June 27, 1976, at about 9.30 P. M., a young man aged about 20, who was riding a bicycle, was knocked down by tanker No. CTG. 2074, which was owned by the first respondent and which came from behind. The injury sustained during the course of the accident consisted, inter alia, of the fracture of the pelvic bone and rupture of urethra. The injured was removed to the S. S. G. Hospital from the scene of accident. He was operated upon in the early hours of the next day at about 2 A. M. Two more operations were performed during the course of his hospitalization which lasted up to Sept. 17, 1976. At the time of discharge, the injured was advised to report again for dilation once every fortnight as he was experiencing difficulty in passing urine owing to the accident injury. The evidence on record indicates that the difficulty persisted requiring hospitalization for brief periods on several occasions even after the initial discharge of the in...
Tag this Judgment!R.J. Lakhia Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-04-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1687; (1982)1GLR646
ORDERA.N. Surti, J.1. At the very outset I must thank Mr. K.J. Shethna, who has represented the Bar Council of Gujarat having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.2. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Court No. 11, Ahmedabad City, directed that the petitioner K.J. Lakhia, a practising Advocate should be produced before him by issuing summons to him, and he further directed that he should stand his trial together with three accused persons for the commission of the offences of cheating and conspiracy with original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of Sessions Case No. 84 of 1981 of the court of the learned City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad.3. When this matter was called out for hearing and final disposal, I had an anxious look at Mr. A. J, Patel, the learned Public Prosecutor who was in charge of 'the matter on behalf of the State of Gujarat, and I am happy to state that at the very outset of the hearing of this application, he made an admirable state...
Tag this Judgment!Lallubhai Chhotabhai by Lrs. and ors. Vs. Vithalbhai Parshottambhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-03-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Guj222
P.D. Desai, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the decision rendered on August 16, 1979 in First Appeal No. 514 of 1975 by M. K. Shah, J. The appeal before M. K. Shah, J. was under See. 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and it was directed against the decision dated Dec. 30, 1974 rendered by the Second Joint Civil judge. Senior Division, Nadiad, in Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 1970 purported to have been made under See. 276 of the Act, where under probate of the will dated April 13, 1961 executed by one Dahyabhai Nanabhai Patel. who died on October 21/22, 1967, was granted to the respondent. M. K. Shah, J. dismissed the appeal and hence the present Letters Patent Appeal.2. On Jan. 29, 1970. the respondent made the application giving rise to this appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Kaira, stating, inter aha, that the document annexed to the application was the last will and testament of Dahbhai Nanabhai Patel and...
Tag this Judgment!imambhai GulamhuseIn Shaikh Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-02-1981
Reported in: (1982)1GLR581
M.P. Thakkar, C.J.1. Does the relationship of employer and employee cease when an employer stops his business or does it cease only when it is terminated in accordance with law? If this question had been posed by the competent authority the petitioner would not have been obliged to approach this Court. Assurance benefit was claimed by the petitioner in his capacity as a nominee of an employee of a Mill Company who died on September 11, 1977, in the context of the benefit claimable under the Employees' Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme of 1976. The application was rejected by the Accounts Officer of the Employees' Provident Funds, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, by his communication dated October, 19, 1959 as per Annexure 'E'. It appears that the Accounts Officer has rejected the claim by reason of the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (respondent No. 1 herein). The petitioner has thereupon approached this Court by way of the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›