Gujarat Court December 1983 Judgments
Mehta Corporation (Private) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Rohit Mills Limited
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-30-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR713
S.L. Talati, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the City Civil Court Judge on 29-12-1983 below Notice of Motion exh. 5 in Civil Suit No. 4511 of 1983. The short facts which gave rise to this appeal may be stated as under.2. On 29-12-1983 Extraordinary general meeting of the defendant-Company was called and in that meeting several resolutions were proposed to be passed and one of the resolutions was Resolution No. 3. On 22-12-1983 Civil Suit was filed and on that very day Notice of Motion was presented to the Court and an injunction was sought for by which the Court was asked to restrain the defendant from passing Resolution No. 3. Ad interim injunction was obtained on 22-12-1983 which was served on the defendant-Company on 28-12-1983 and an affidavit-in-reply was filed and the Notice of Motion was opposed. Ultimately after hearing both the sides the learned City Civil Court Judge passed an order and vacated the injunction which was already granted. Thereafter this...
Tag this Judgment!Mayabhai Raghavbhai Vs. Pancholi Dhula Amra and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-30-1983
Reported in: (1984)2GLR816
R.J. Shah, J.1. The present Special Criminal Application is directed against the order dated 21st November 1983 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Criminal Revision Application No. 113 of 1973 allowing the said revision application which in turn was directed against the order dated 20th October 1983 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 383 of 1983 wherein the application for search warrant under Section 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code was dismissed.2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to state a few facts in brief. Present petitioner Mayabhai has a daughter by name Vijuben. An agricultural labourer in his farm by name Dulabhai Amrabhai developed relations with the said Vijuben who is alleged to be a minor and kidnapped her from her father's custody. The said Dhulabhai claims that he has married Vijuben and Vijuben also delivered a female child in the month of September 1983. Petition...
Tag this Judgment!Dilipbhai Babubhai Kapadia Vs. District Magistrate Surat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-30-1983
Reported in: (1984)2GLR919
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges his detention, pursuant to the order dated 20-9-1983, passed by the District Magistrate, Surat, under Section 3 (2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act').2. On 8-5-1983 one Umerbhai informed the District Magistrate, Surat that Dilipbhai Babubhai Kapadia, the detenu, was illegally receiving cement from the contractors executing the works of the Irrigation Department of the Government and selling the same in black market. The District Magistrate, after getting the said information verified and on being satisfied that the petitioner was illegally dealing in cement and his activity was prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodity essential to the community, passed the impugned order of detention with a view to preventing him from carrying on the said prejudicial activity.3. First contention raised by Mr. Patel is that ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandulal Gokaldas Vs. Gijubhai Purshottamdas Patel and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-29-1983
Reported in: (1984)2GLR1458
M.B. Shah, J.1. The petitioner has filed the aforesaid Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 1698 of 1982 for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 963 of 1982 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ahmedabad. Along with the said Miscellaneous Application he bad also filed Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 1785 of 1982 wherein he had prayed that Sections 190 and 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code, hereinafter referred to as 'the Code,' be declared as unconstitutional and illegal. The petitioner also prayed that the procedure prescribed for the Summons Cases beginning from Section 251 to Section 259 is unreasonable and is, therefore, in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.2. In order to appreciate the contentions of the petitioner, a few relevant facts may be noted first. Respondent No. 1 had filed the aforesaid criminal complaint being Criminal Case No. 963 of 1982 on 15-5-82 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 2, inter aha contending t...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Purani Jagatpa Wandas Guru Bhakti Jiwandas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-29-1983
Reported in: (1983)22GLR895
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. This Revision Application raises certain interesting questions regarding the interpretation of Sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, hereinafter called 'the Act'.2. The relevant facts, briefly stated, run as under:According to the prosecution there is a Swaminarayan Temple situate in village Vadtal which is administered by a registered public trust under a Scheme formulated by this Court. Under the Scheme the Acharya Maharaj is appointed the Custodian-Trustee and the complainant Purani Shantipriyadasjee the Chief Executive Authority (Chief Kotheri) of the temple. Every year 'Nam-Dharmada' money is collected from the followers of the Swaminarayan sect for which Letters of Authority ('Agnya Patra-Mohor Chhap') are issued to different Tyagis. Accordingly the respondent was issued one such Agnya Patra, Exhibit 22, dated 23/24th November, 1977 for the period from Kartak Sudi 14th of Samvat Year 2034 to Chaitra Sudi 15th of Samvat Y...
Tag this Judgment!Dena Bank, Surat Vs. Devi Exhibitors, Surat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-26-1983
Reported in: AIR1985Guj51; (1984)2GLR1040
ORDER1. This petition is directed against the order passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge (,S/ D) Surat which is confirmed by the Joint Judge, Surat in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 89 of 1983.2. The facts which gave rise to this petition may be stated as under. -Dena Bank filed a civil suit being Regular Civil suit No. 554 of 1983 in the Court of Civil Judge(S. D.) at Surat. It was a suit for injunction. In fact Dena Bank had filed two suits previously being Special Civil suit Nos. 197 of 1981 and 198 of 1981 to recover certain amounts which according to the Bank were due. The total dues according to the Bank came to Rs.21,00,000/. Special civil suit No. 197 of 1981 was for recovering the amount of Rs.2,51,88280 with interest and special Civil suit No. 198 of 1981 was for recovering the amount of Rs. 17.22.998---61 with interest. The interest was claimed at Rs. 17%. Both the suits were pending During the pendency of those two suits Regular civil suit No.554 of 1983 was filed for obtain...
Tag this Judgment!Kantilal G. Shah Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-26-1983
Reported in: (1984)2GLR809
S.A. Shah, J.1. The petitioner who was at the relevant time working as Mamlatdar (Camp Commandant), Tharad, District-Banaskantha, challenges the order of his compulsory retirement, dated 6th July, 1976, produced at Annexure-D, being arbitrary, ultra vires and void.2. In order to appreciate the contention of the petitioner, it is necessary to mention the facts. The petitioner had put in 33 years' service and he was working for the last ten years as Mamlatdar before he was compulsorily retired. The petitioner had passed the Revenue Qualifying Examination in July, 1953 and he was promoted to the post of Aval Karkun and thereafter he was promoted as Mamlatdar in December, 1966 which post he held till July, 1976.3. In para 3 of the petition the petitioner has averred that during his long service of more than 33 years he was never punished for any misconduct nor has he received any adverse remarks except once covering a period of about ten months, and the said adverse remark was made only by...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpat Ramanlal Dave Vs. Divisional Supdt., W. Rly. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-26-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR641
S.A. Shah, J.1. The petitioner who is a class IV employee of the railway working as Acting Pointsman and Parcel Porter under the Station Superintendent, Ahmedabad. challenges the order of removal from service passed by the competent authority dated 3-1-76 and the order under revision dt. 6-1-77 on the ground that the same is passed without any evidence and, therefore, perverse and is not in accordance with the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The short facts of this petition are as under.2. The petitioner was at the relevant time working as class IV employee Acting Pointsman and Parcel Porter at Ahmedabad Railway Station. During the course of the employment of the petitioner, he was charged by the railway authorities. As it appears from the enquiry held by the enquiry officer, the petitioner was served with a memorandum of charge-sheet and the statement of imputation dt. 31-1-76. The charge was as under:Indulging in mal and corrupt practice, highly unsocial and u...
Tag this Judgment!Kulsambibi D/O. Shah Mohamed Noor Mohamed Vs. Noor Ahmed Noor Mohmed a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-26-1983
Reported in: (1984)2GLR826
S.L. Talati, J.1. For the purpose of deciding these appeals it is not necessary to state all facts. The reason is that all facts are stated in the judgment of City Civil Court and those facts are admitted.2. The appeals are filed challenging the order passed by the Judge, City Civil Court (Court No. 3), Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 3615 of 1973. The application below Exh. 546 was decided by the learned City Civil Court Judge on 23-9-1983.3. One Noor Ahmed Noor Mohmed was the plaintiff and Kulsambibi, Ibrahimbhai and Usmanbhai were the three defendants. The original suit was filed as an indigent person and it was in fact the permission to allow the original plaintiff to file the suit as an indigent person under Order 33 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 452 of 1972. That application was granted and it was thereafter numbered as suit. Ad-interim injunction Exh. 11 was issued and served on defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Ultimately the suit was numbered as ...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Desai and Co. (Nadiadwala) Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR267
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is a petition by one firm, which was dealers appointed by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., the sole respondent in this petition. The grievance in this petition, after it was amended, was that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondent-Corporation to resume the supplies of petroleum products to the petitioner-firm and also directing the respondent-Corporation not to terminate the arrangement with the petitioner-firm and also for a writ directing cancellation of the impugned decision of the respondent-Corporation dated 24-11-1982 (passed during the pendency of this petition) and for other reliefs.2. In order to understand the controversy, a few facts are required to be noted carefully. The petitioner-firm consists of one Desai and his brother's wife. The respondent is a Corporation wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, it is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as it was discharging the Gove...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »