Gujarat Court September 1983 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Manilal Hiralal Doshi (by Lr) and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-16-1983
Reported in: AIR1985Guj47
Bhatt, J.1. These 17 matters are taken up together her because of the common question pertaining to the interpretation of S. 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, being Act No. 33 of 1976, but certain factual situations make us divide these petitions into three groups. First 9 matters out of, the serial numbers mentioned at the top of this judgment simplicity deal with only, one point, namely, whether the Government before rejecting an application for exemption under S. 20(l) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity's sake, is bound to give audience to the person who has applied for exemption. In the next six matters commencing from the Special Civil Application No. 2895/83 mentioned at the top of this judgment, the above question is certainly there, but there is one additional point also that was canvassed by the petitioners of these six petitions. They allege that the rejection of their applications was bad for ...
Husseinbhai Ahmedbhai Memon Vs. Mangiben Wd/O. Lallubhai Holibhai Chau ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-16-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR221
B.K. Mehta, J.1. This group of first appeals together with cross-objections and the revision applications arises out of the claims preferred in Motor Accident Claims Petitions Nos. 56 to 61 and 68 of 1977 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surat. The claim petitions were required to be filed since the labourers sitting in a public career bearing registration No. GTC 3368 carrying timber logs from the forest near Godariya in Ahwa district to village Holi-Amba met with an accident. It appears that all the eight labourers, who were employed for the purposes of loading and unloading the truck in question, were sitting on the timber-logs loaded in the truck. When the truck approached village Hirawadi, Usmanbhai Mohmad, who was the driver of the truck and original opponent No. 1, lost control of the vehicle since it is alleged that he was driving in rash and negligent manner with the result that the truck turned turtle and fell on the side of the road. Lallubhai Holibhai, who was one...
Nirmalaben Manilal Doshi (Heirs of Manilal Hiralal) and ors. Vs. State ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-16-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR322
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. These 17 matters are taken up together because of the common question pertaining to the interpretation of Section 20 of the Urban Land (Celling and Regulation) Act, being Act No. 33 of 1976, but certain factual situations make us divide these petitions into three groups. First 9 matters out of the serial numbers mentioned at the top of this judgment simplicitor deal with only one point, namely, whether the Government before rejecting an application for exemption under Section 20(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity's sake, is bound to give audience to the person who has applied for exemption. In the next six matters commencing from the Special Civil Application No. 2895 of 1983 mentioned at the top of this judgment, the above question is certainly there, but there is one additional point also that was canvassed by the petitioners of these six petitions. They allege that the rejection of their applicatio...
Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. Vs. Chunilal D. Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-14-1983
Reported in: (1984)2GLR943
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been filed by the original respondent No. 2 of the Special Civil Application No. 602 of 1981, which was filed in this High Court by the present respondent - the original petitioner Mr. C. D. Patel, whose petition had come to be allowed by our esteemed Brother B. K. Mehta, J. by his judgment dated 23-11-81 ordering that the impugned order of penalty of removal from service of this public Corporation, namely, the Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the 'IPCL' for brevity's sake, was bad in law and void since the inquiry was vitiated on its being violative of the principles of natural justice and fair-play on the grounds upheld by him in his judgment and also because the charge had not been brought home to the petitioner-delinquent inasmuch as there was no evidence, direct or circumstantial, to find that there was want of integrity as alleged and specified and also because t...
Jitendrasingh Sardarsingh Barad Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-14-1983
Reported in: (1984)2GLR1031
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Rule. Mr. M.A. Bukhari, A.P.P. waives service of the Rule for the respondent-State in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 516 of 1983 to 1082 of 1983.2. During the course of hearing of Criminal Revision Application No. 92 of 1983, Criminal Revision Application Nos. 85 to 91 of 1983 and Criminal Revision Application No. 432 of 1981 filed by the present petitioner-accused, it transpired that there were more than 600 cases against the petitioner-accused on the allegation that while in service as a Police Constable at Dhanera Police Station, he came into possession of printed warrant books maintained for the purposes of journey by S.T. bus. On the strength of such warrant, a Police Constable and accused in custody and certain other persons could travel by bus up to a destination mentioned in the warrant. When such a warrant is shown to the S.T. bus conductor a person is not required to make payment of S.T. fare charges and the amount of S.T. fare charges would be later on ...
Dr. Mahipatray M. Mehta Vs. Haji Juma Valimamad and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-14-1983
Reported in: (1984)2GLR1074
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Outside the Parliament, a Member of Parliament, cannot claim any higher privilege, than that of an ordinary citizen. If he makes a defamatory statement in respect of any person before Press or Public, he cannot claim protection of Parliamentary privilege. But the question is when he makes a representation before the highest authority of the country, with respect to smuggling and other nefarious activities in the area of his constituency and draws the attention of the authority towards the inaction and complacency of the Government officers concerned, and incidentally refers to some unlawful actions (not smuggling) of the complainant and points out that the concerned Government officer was inactive and complacent in this regard would it amount to defamation of the complainant Is the statement so made during the course of representation by an M. P. not required to be read in proper context If so read, can an intention to cause harm to the reputation of the complainant b...
Prakashbhai Kanjibhat Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-09-1983
Reported in: (1985)1GLR162
M.B. Shah, J.1. The petitioner-Original complainant has filed the Special Criminal Application under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India wherein he has prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 20th July 1982, passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 264/81 by the Additional City Sessions Judge. Court No. 20. Ahmedabad by which he has confirmed the order dated 30th September 1981 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate. Court No. 9. Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 2284/80.2. The petitioner is a tenant of one room situated in Bundug Flats in Juna Vadaj, Ahmedabad and he was using the said room as a shop for carrying on his business as a tailor in the name and style of 'Love Light Tailors'. One Kantilal Ishwarlal was a landlord of the said premises and from him he took the said premises on rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. To the owner he had paid Rs. 11,501/- as deposit. Thereafter respondent No. 2 purchased the said premises from the orig...
i.H. Patel and anr. Vs. R.K. Mishra and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-09-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR274
S.A. Shah, J.1. The petitioners are confirmed senior clerks in the services of the Railway Administration. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are also senior clerks in the Railway Administration and belong to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe respectively. Both the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are junior to the petitioners in the said cadre as shown in the seniority list at Annexure-A.2. Promotional avenue from the post of Senior Clerk is to the post of Head Clerk in Class - III cadre. According to the petitioners there were 24 posts of Head Clerks in the department and the reservation of posts for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates was 71/2 % and 15% respectively. However, the Railway Board has prescribed and published roster points after taking into account the reservation and the promotions are to be made in accordance with the roster points fixed by the Railway Board which is in turn in accordance with the various resolutions published by the Central Government.3. There is no doubt...
Vanrajsinh Prabhatsinh Gohil Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Guj157
Bhatt, J.1. All these petitions by different citizens but against the common respondents, namely, the State of Guiarat and the concerned officers of the State essentially raise a common question of law regarding the vires of S. 69A(1) of the Land Revenue Code which had come to be introduced into the said Code by the Bombay Land Revenue Code and Land Tenure Abolition Laws (Gtijaral Amendment) Act, 1982, wlii,,h vas the successor of the Bombay Lind Revenue Code and Land Tenure Abolition (Gujarat Amendment) Ordinance, 1981. In all these petitions the substantive prayer and, if we say so, the, main prayer is striking down of these provisions and the other reliefs that are sought in these petitions are flowing from the said main prayer. The other prayers are pertaining to the requisitions by the Revenue Officers calling upon these petitioners to hand-over the mines and minerals in question or stop conducting mining operations therein, etc.2. In order to understand the confror versies, a few...
Ravjibhai Maganbhai Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR122
M.B. Shah, J.1. The petitioner-accused has filed this revision application against the judgment and order dated 20th January 1983 passed by the Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 199 of 1982 wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 3, Ahmedabad on 2nd November 1982 in Criminal Case No. 2866 of 1981 wherein the petitioner was convicted under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo six months' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 700/- in default, to undergo two months' further R.I. was confirmed.2. The petitioner-accused was a driver of S.T. bus bearing No. G.T.H. 4079 and he was driving the said S.T. bus on 20th November 1981 at about 12 p.m. and was going from Kalupur to Naroda. At that time one person named Nagindas Ambalal Patel was also going from Kalupur to Naroda side on his scooter bearing No. G.J.M. 1370. The petitioner overtook the s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »