Gujarat Court July 1982 Judgments
State of Gujarat Vs. Bhagubhai Ramjibhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-14-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2270; (1982)2GLR624
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. In this appeal the State has challenged the order of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in summary Case No. 92 of 1978 acquitting the accused of the charges under Section 7 read with Section 16(1) Clause (a) Sub-clause (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The prosecution story is that the accused had adulterated cow milk with water. A sample was taken from the milk that was being sold by the accused and sent to the Public Analyst for analysis to find out its contents. The Public Analyst carried out the analysis and submitted his report which is produced at Exh. 11 of this case which shows that the milk fat contents of the milk in question was 5.0 percent and nonfat solid was 7.5%. As against that, the required percentage prescribed by law is 3.5% milk fat and 8.5'% non-fat solid substance. It is clear from this report that the milk in question contained considerably higher percentage of fat whereas it contained non-fat solid...
Tag this Judgment!U.K. Desai Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-13-1982
Reported in: (1982)2GLR625; (1983)IILLJ251Guj
1. The petitioner joined Gujarat Electricity Board as a Sub-Engineer in 1957 and by 1971 he rose to the position of an Executive Engineer. After he completed the age of 50 years, the respondent-Board by its order dated 4-6-1980 retired him compulsorily. This order of premature compulsory retirement is challenged in this petition. 2. It is not in dispute that the order of compulsory retirement was passed by the respondent Board in exercise of its powers under Regulation 72 of the Gujarat Electricity Board Service Regulations (hereafter referred to as 'the Regulation'). Power of the respondent Board to take such an action is not disputed. What is challenged is the action of the respondent Board in retiring the petitioner compulsorily on the ground that the action is not consistent with the criteria fixed by the aid Regulation. 3. Regulation No. 72 provides for retirement on the date of the completion of 58 years of age. It also provides that the appointing authority may, without assignin...
Tag this Judgment!Surat Goods Transport Pvt. Ltd. Co. Vs. Asharam Someshwar Suthar and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-12-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj147; (1984)1GLR63
P.D. Desai, J. 1. These three First Appeals arise out of a common judgment delivered in three Motor Vehicle Claim Petitions. They were notified together for preliminary hearing and actually reached hearing on an earlier occasion. Since it prima facie appeared to the Court that the provisions of the Bombay Court-fees Act. 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Court-fees Act.') were not duly complied with because Court-fees were not paid in two appeals (First Appeal No. 880 of 1982 and First Appeal No. 881 of 1982), the hearing of the appeals was adjourned. Mr. B. J. Shethna who appears on behalf of the appellant in each appeal was granted time to satisfy the Court that the provisions of the Court-fees Act were duly complied with. Mr. M. B. Shah, learned Assistant Government pleader, who was present in the Court, was requested to waive service of the notice upon the Government pleader and he agreed to do so. We have now heard Mr. Shethna and Mr. Shah and for the reasons which follow, we ...
Tag this Judgment!Mansingh R. Parmar Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-12-1982
Reported in: (1982)2GLR708
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The petitioner, an employee of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereafter referred to as 'the Corporation') was dismissed from service by an order dated 9-9-1981. Thereafter the respondent Corporation applied to the Conciliation Officer under Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') for approval of the action taken by it. On 2-1-1982, respondent No. 2 passed an order suspending the petitioner from service during pendency of the proceedings before the Conciliation Officer. He informed the petitioner that he would not be entitled to draw any wages, subsistence allowance or compensation during the said period of suspension. What is challenged in this petition is not the order of suspension, but the decision of the respondent Corporation not to pay any wages, subsistence allowance or compensation to the petitioner during the pendency of the said proceedings.2. Mr. Chari the learned advocate for the petitioner s...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Vogue Garments and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-08-1982
Reported in: (1982)2GLR449; (1983)ILLJ255Guj
Shukla, J. 1. A government Labour Officer and Inspector of the Office of the commissioner of Labour, Gujarat State, filed a complaint against the present respondents for contravention of Rule 21 of (the Rules frames under) the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1970, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act', and for the non-compliance with the order issued under the said Act punishable under S. 24 of the said Act. The same complaint was registered as Criminal Case No. 49 of 1977 in the Court of the Metropolitan magistrate at Ahmedabad. 2. On behalf of the complaint, one Mr. K. T. Vazirani was examined. His evidence is brief and we may note the same at the outset. He stated that he was working as an Inspector under the provisions of the said Act and as such on 18.2.1977 he visited one Nayan Trading Company at about 9.00 a.m. One Shirish Shah, accused No. 2 was present. He was the principal employer. Thereafter, at about 3.30 p.m., the same Shirish Shah and the complainant...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-08-1982
Reported in: (1983)35CTR(Guj)372; [1983]142ITR787(Guj)
Ahmadi, J.1. At first blush it may appear that the impugned order hits the petitioner-Corporation hard but on closer scrutiny it becomes obvious that the order is not as inequitable as it is sought to be made out. The facts in a nutshell are that for the assessment year 1976-77, the ITO, by his order dated 22nd September, 1979, found the total income of the petitioner liable to be brought to tax to be Rs. 21,60,96,200. Along with the assessment order, a demand notice raising a demand of Rs. 4,36,03,414 was served on the assessee. The assessee, instead of paying the amount mentioned in the demand notice, addressed a letter dated 15th October, 1979, annex. C, pointing out various patent mistakes committed by the ITO. The assessee returned the demand notice to the ITO along with his request for rectification. In other words, the tax was not paid by the assessee as per the demand notice but instead the demand notice was returned pointing out certain patent errors committed by the ITO. It a...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Abdul Rahim Abdullabhai Ranginwala
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-08-1982
Reported in: (1982)2GLR390
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the State of Gujarat against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad acquitting the accused for the change levelled against him of having contravened the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as regards construction of water closet etc.2. The complaint against the accused was that although he was given notice dated 11-10-77 by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for constructing a water closet in the premises in which he resided, he failed to do so and thus he committed an offence punishable under the provisions of the Act. It appears that the parties thought it fit not to lead any evidence in the matter as in the opinion of the learned Advocate the matter required interpretation of Section 178, Sub-sections (1) & (2) of the Act. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that in the fact and circumstances of the case Sub-sectio...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Budhabhai Bhalabhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-08-1982
Reported in: (1982)2GLR524
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. This is the appeal by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First-Class, Anand on 16-5-79. The prosecution case is that the complainant Punjabhai Bhikhabhai was unlawfully tied by a rope, at village Rampura in Anand Taluka of Kaira District on 22nd June, 1977 at 16-00 hours and thus the accused are said to have committed offences under Section 342 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution has examined the complainant and several other persons who are said to have helped in untiring the rope with which the complainant was tied and releasing him from illegal detention. The learned Magistrate after having considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in considerable details, has come to the conclusion that there are material contradictions in their evidence and that the story of the prosecution sounds quite improbable and, therefore, he has disbelieved those witnesses. The learned Public Prosec...
Tag this Judgment!Harishbhai Laxmanbhal Patel Vs. State and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-08-1982
Reported in: (1982)2GLR575
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the action of respondent No. 3 police sub-inspector, Jawahar Chowk Chowky, Sabarmati seizing the petitioner's auto rickshaw No. GRT. 77 on the allegation that at the time of its seizure, the said rickshaw was driven rashly and negligently and contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the rules framed thereunder. The petitioner contends that the third respondent has no power to seize the said rickshaw, especially on the ground that at the relevant time, more than permissible number of passengers were being carried in the said rickshaw.2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner in its full perspective, it would be desirable to quickly glance through a few relevant facts leading to this petition. The petitioner owns an auto rickshaw No. G.R.T. 77. It is an owner-driven rickshaw and the petitioner himself plies the same. The petitioner is having a regula...
Tag this Judgment!Arunaben and ors. Vs. Mehmoodbhai Imamali Kaji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-06-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj10; (1983)1GLR156
P.D. Desai, J.1. These two cross-appeals are directed against the same award made in a motor accident claim case and they can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment.2. The accident giving rise to the claim occurred on July 7, 1977 at about 10 A. M. near village Tajpur on the Ahmedabad-Khedbrahma road. Two vehicles were involved in the accident. One of the vehicles was a passenger bus bearing registration No. GTH. 5496 owned by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (second respondent in First Appeal No. 1587 of 1979). The other vehicle was a motor-truck bearing registration No. GTK. 2068 owned by one Ran-chhodbhai Visabhai Patel (third respondent in First Appeal No. 1587 of 1979). The deceased, aged about 30 at the time of the ac-cident, was an employee of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and he was at the material time on actual duty as a conductor on the passenger bus. It appears that the passenger bus was required to be taken in the reverse direction a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »