Gujarat Court December 1982 Judgments
Assistant Collector of Customs, Jamnagar and ors. Vs. Karsan Mohmed Su ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-31-1982
Reported in: 1984(3)ECC211; 1983(13)ELT891(Guj); (1983)2GLR865
1. The short questions which arises in those proceedings is as to whether the civil court has the jurisdiction to direct the Customs Authorities to release the fishing boats which were seized by the Customs Authorities during the course of investigation, on execution of bond by the plaintiff If yes, had the jurisdiction been properly exercised in those two cases. 2. The Customs Authorities seized two fishing boats, namely, S. V. Pankhde and S. V. Usmani, on June 29, 1982. A seizure Panchanama of the same was effected on the same day. The boats were seized on the allegation that they were used for transporting contraband goods from another vessel, namely, M. S. V. Sagar Laxmi and that the boats were liable to confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act. It appears that the statements of the opponents-plaintiffs were recorded under the provisions of Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 ('the Act' for short) on the same day. On August 13, 1982 both the opponents filed two separat...
Tag this Judgment!Naranbhai Sadabhai Parmar and ors. Vs. Barot Nandlal Khodidas and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-31-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR522
D.C. Gheewala, J.1. The present revision application is directed against the order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mehsana passed below Exh. 7 in Sessions Case No. 68 of 1982. The facts of the case can be briefly summarised as under:2. The Opponent No. 1 filed a complaint against the applicants alleging that they had published a printed leaflet making false imputation against opponent No. 1. The said leaflet contains defamatory statements. The learned J.M.F.C. held an inquiry under the provisions of Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter decided to issue process for offences punishable Under Sections 500, 193, 195 r/w. Section 109 of LP. Code against the applicant. As the offence punishable under Section 195 was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the applicants to the Court of Sessions to stand their trial.3. At the stage of framing the charge, Opponent No. 1, who is a practising Advocate submitted an application E...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshbhai Amritlal Chhatral Vs. State and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-31-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR531
D.C. Gheewala, J.1. The petitioner has sought to raise a question before this Court regarding which a very clear answer is to be found in the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The petitioner, who alongwith six other persons was cited as an accused for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 504 r. w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No. 122 of 1982 of Kalol Taluka Police Station had submitted an application as per Annexure-D before the learned J.M.F.C., Kalol and prayed that he should be released on bail under Section 436 of Cr. P. Code. The learned Magistrate held that Section 436 of Cr. P. Code would not be applicable inasmuch as the accused was not brought before the court by the police nor has he been arrested by the police. The petitioner contended before me through Mr. N.K. Barot, the learned advocate that the words 'or appears' occurring in Section 436(1) should be construed in a wider sense and it would not be necessary that the accused ...
Tag this Judgment!Chauhan Ranchhodbhai Fatehsinh Vs. Valand Keshavlal Nathalal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-31-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR779
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the original defendant of the Regular Civil Suit No. 123/69, decreed against him by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division at Narol, whose judgment had come to be confirmed by the learned Appellate Judge in the Regular Civil Appeal No. 35/77 in the District Court of Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol filed by him.2. The respondent-plaintiff had filed the suit against the appellant-defendant alleging that the defendant, his neighbour occupying property bearing No. 82 (the plaintiffs number being 85 on the western side) had encroached upon the land of his ownership No. 85, to the extent of 48' x. 48' and despite the injunction issued by the Panchayat regarding not putting up the structures without the Panchayat's permission, he had gone ahead. The respondent-plaintiffs suit initially was for an injuction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession and going ahead with the construction, but during the pendency of this suit the...
Tag this Judgment!Amarsing Ratansinh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-30-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR654
M.P. Thakkar, C.J.1. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant, original petitioner, in connection with a charge levelled against him to the effect that he had remained absent from duty for about a month without obtaining leave. The charge-sheet was served on him on May 28, 1977. By an order dated February 3, 1978 the disciplinary authority exonerated him from the charge. On June 29, 1978, that is to say about sixteen months after he was exonerated, the Security Officer exercised suo motu revisional powers under Rule 60 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 and issued a show cause notice calling upon the original petitioner to show cause as to why the order exonerating him should not be set aside and an order imposing penalty of dismissal from service should not be passed against him. The original petitioner rendered his explanation in response to the show cause notice. After taking into account the explanation so offered by him, the Security Officer passed an...
Tag this Judgment!Pandya Rasiklal Ranchhodbhai Vs. Sakriben Keshavlal (Died)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-29-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj158
A.N. Surti, J.1. The present civil revision application is directed against the impugned judgment and decree of eviction passed by the learned District Judge, Baroda in Civil Appeal No. 1'41 of 1977, whereby the lower Appellate Court took the view that the decree of eviction must be passed against the petitioner-tenant as he was a tenant who was not ready and willing to pay rent to the landlord. It may be stated that in this behalf in the original suit a decree for eviction was passed by the Additional Small Cause Judge, Baroda in Small Cause Suit No. 10 of 1977 (Old Regular Civil Suit No. 1313 of 1967).2. On a prior occasion this matter had come to the High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 824 of 1071, whereby this Court took the view that a decree under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act could not have been passed, but this was a fit case where the matter should be remanded to the trial Court with a direction to ascertain whether the defendant-tenant was entitled to the p...
Tag this Judgment!Brahmbhatt Ambalal Ashabhai and ors. Vs. Special Secretary Revenue Dep ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-29-1982
Reported in: (1983)2GLR1091
S.L. Talati, J.1. This petition is filed by the persons who are co-owners of. agricultural land survey No. 54/3 admeasuring 0 acre and 34 gunthas and survey No. 54/4 admeasuring 0 acre and 31 gunthas situated in village Simarda in Petlad Taluka of Kaira District. The father of the petitioners sold the land on 10-12-1962 to opponents Nos. 2 and 3. As the transaction was hit by the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 the proceedings were stated. Ultimately transaction was held to be void and a fine of Rs. 100/- was inflicted on the transferor. However, the Prant Officer, Petlad by his order dated 17-1-77 and produced at annexure 'B' allowed the land to continue with the purchasers who are opponents Nos. 2 and 3. The said order of the Prant Officer was confirmed by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department, Gujarat State on 9-6-1977. That order is produced at annexure 'C'. This petition is filed to get these two orders produced at annexures B and C qu...
Tag this Judgment!Pandya Rasiklal Ranchhodbhai Vs. Punjiben Amratlal Shah and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-29-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR274
A.N. Surti, J.1. The present Civil Revision Application is directed against the impugned judgment and decree of eviction passed by the learned District Judge, Baroda in Civil Appeal No. 141 of 1977, whereby the lower Appellate Court took the view that the decree of eviction must be passed against the petitioner-tenant as he was a tenant who was not ready and willing to pay rent to the landlord. It may be stated that in this behalf in the original suit a decree for eviction was passed by the Additional Small Cause Judge, Baroda in Small Cause Suit No. 10 of 1977 (old Regular Civil Suit No. 1313 of 1967).2. On a prior occasion this matter had come to the High Court in Civil Revision Application No 824 of 1971, whereby this Court took the view that a decree under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act could not have been passed, but this was a fit case where the matter should be remanded to the trial Court with a direction to ascertain whether the defendant-tenant was entitled to the pro...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company, Baroda Vs. Shankarbha ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-29-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj184; (1983)1GLR592
S.B. Majmudar, J. 1. These two first appeals are filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act by the appellant-insurance company which feels aggrieved by the two awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Godhra against the Insurance Company in Claim Petitions Nos. 1 of 1981 and 2 of 1981, respectively. 2. These two petitions along with other cognate matters have been disposed of by the Tribunal by a common judgment as all of them arose out, of the same accident. The insurance company has been held liable to make good the claim of the claimants in these claim petitions on the basis that the concerned claimants were travelling in the insured truck as paid passengers along with their goods. 3. to 4. xxxxx 5. That takes us to the last contention advanced by Mr. Soparkar in support of the appeals. He submitted that even though the insurance company is made liable to answer the claim of the claimants as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal should have ...
Tag this Judgment!Jinabhai Jesabhai Parmer by L R's Vs. Gohil Ramsingbhai Becharbhai and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-28-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj160; (1983)1GLR460
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J. 1. The short question which arises for consideration in this petition is, whether the Civil Court can direct delivery of possession of the mortgaged land to the debtor in execution proceedings taken out in virtue of Section 9(2) of the Gujarat Rural Debtors' Relief Act, 1976 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). A few relevant facts leading to this petition may be set out at this stage.2. The first respondent mortgaged his land bearing Survey No. 187/2 of village Cametha for Rs. 4000/- sometime in the year 1972 to Jinabhai Jesabhai Parmar, since deceased. The three petitioners are the sons of the said mortgagee. On the coming into force of the Act the first respondent filed an application before the Debt Settlement Officer, Padra, under Section 8 of the Act. The Debt Settlement Officer passed an order discharging the debt whereupon an Appeal No. 170 of 1980 was carried to the appellate officer appointed by the State Government for that purpose who modified the order pass...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »