Gujarat Court May 1984 Judgments
Smt. Prabhavatiben Chandrashanker Trivedi Vs. Special Recovery Officer ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-31-1984
Reported in: (1985)1GLR305
S.A. Shah, J.1. Petitioner Smt. Prabhavatiben is the widow of Chandrashanker Narmadashanker Trivedi, who had taken loan from the Gota Group Seva Sahakari Co-operative Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society'). Since the petitioner could not repay the amount of loan in time, the Society made an application to the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar, under Section 106 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the issuance of Certificate. The District Assistant Registrar, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar, after making inquiry, issued Certificate dated 26-8-1976 (Annexure 'A' to the petition) holding that an amount of Rs. 11,198.42 paise by way of principal amount, Rs. 3,085.09 paise by way of interest, Rs. 124.55 paise by way of penal interest, and Rs. 3/- for notice fee, i.e. in all an amount of Rs. 14,411.06 paise, was due and payable by the debtor to the creditor, and directed that the said amount...
Tag this Judgment!Bayad Gram Panchayat and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-1984
Reported in: (1984)2GLR1358
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The petitioners herein challenge the legality and validity of an order (Annexure 'B' to the petition) dated November 16, 1983 passed by the Department of Health and Family Welfare in the Government. By this decision the location of a Community Health Centre in Sabarkantha District has been changed. Earlier as per Government Resolution (Annexure 'A' to the petition) dated July 15, 1982, the location of the Community Health Centre was fixed at village Bayad. As per the impugned order, it is sought to be changed to Amodra. Petitioner No. 1 is a Gram Panchayat constituted under the provisions of Gujarat Gram Panchayats Act, 1962. The petitioner No. 2 is the Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat. Respondent No. 2 herein is a Member of Legislative Assembly (M.L.A.) elected from Bayad constituency. Respondent No. 1 is the State Government.2. The petitioners challenge the legality and validity of the aforesaid order at Annexure 'B' on the grounds that the order is actuated by m...
Tag this Judgment!Narottamdas L. Shah Vs. Patel Maganbhai Revabhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-03-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1790
ORDERA.P. Ravani, J.1. Some questions of vital public importance have arisen in this petition. On this point at least, the learned Counsel appearing for rival parties appear to be ad idem. The questions are : Does it behave to the lawyers as a class to resort to strike and if anyone publicly comments and publishes the same in a rather unhappy or unpleasant language, would it amount to defamation of an individual member of the class of lawyers? Further, if the insinuating remarks are directed against the entire class of lawyers, would it amount to an offence of defamation so as to attract the provisions of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code2. According to the complainant, since September 23, 1983, the lawyers in Gujarat were protesting against the interference of the Government in judiciary. On account of the agitation, they ceased to participate in court proceedings and resorted to 'satyagraha'. As stated in the Resolution passed on February 2, 1984 by the Executive Committe...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Abdulkadar Abdulgani Hasmani
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-1984
Reported in: 1993LC239(Gujarat); 1991(55)ELT497(Guj); (1985)2GLR1146
J.P. Desai, J.1. Respondent No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 798 of 1979 and Criminal Appeal No. 889 of 1979 was original accused No. 1 in the Trial Court. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1259 of 1979 was original accused No. 2 in the Trial Court while the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1260 of 1979 was original accused No. 3 in the Trial Court. Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 in Criminal Appeal No. 798 of 1979 and Criminal Appeal No. 889 of 1979 were original accused Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 respectively. Hence we will refer to these respondents and appellants by their respective positions before the Trial Court. 2. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals may be briefly stated as follows : Vahidkhan Munavarkhan Pathan, P.W. 5, Exhibit 9, serving as an Inspector in the Customs Department, accompanied by some other officials of the said Department, including one Amarkotia, Superintendent of the said Department raided the residential premises of accused Nos. 2 and 3 on 26-2-1976 and 2...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›