Gujarat Court January 1985 Judgments
M.S. Upadhyaya Vs. Mistri Jayantilal Hargovinddas and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-16-1985
Reported in: (1985)2GLR1108
J.P. Desai, J.1. The respondents in these appeals were tried before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mansa in different Criminal Cases for an offence punishable under Section 192-A of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') on the allegation that they brought within the octroi limits of the Nagar Panchayat of Mansa in Vijapur Taluka their public carriers without payment of octroi duty and thereby committed this offence. These appeals involve common question of law and some common questions of facts and, therefore, with the consent of the learned advocates, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The facts leading to the filing of these Criminal Cases are stated in details in the judgment delivered by the learned Judicial Magistrate in all these cases and, therefore, it is not necessary to reiterate them in this judgment. The allegations 'made in all the cases are almost of similar nature. There is only differenc...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmed Yusuf Kachhi Vs. Additional Secretary to Government of India and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-12-1985
Reported in: 1986(9)LC86(Gujarat)
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. These four petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are filed for the release of four different detenus, who were detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. Though the four cases are distinct, they can be conveniently dealt With together because the background that resulted in their detention are to be found at Annexure A in each of these petitions and the grounds at respective Annexure B. We say that the grounds of detention are almost the same because, as said by us above, the occasion for giving rise to the alleged satisfaction of the detaining authority is a single transaction, to which we shall advert immediately. It is alleged that on 10.2.1984, the son of detenu Ahmed Jelaila, who was the owner of a mechanised boat, styled as 'A1-Anwar' engaged the services of one Mr. T.D. Francis, a driver of the launch, against the promise to pay him Rs. 15,000/- for a trip to Dubai an...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Aryodaya Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-04-1985
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas897(Guj)
S.B. Majmudar, J. 1. By Company Application No. 160 of 1984, Aryodaya Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., which runs a composite textile mill in this city has sought direction under section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, to the effect that utilisation of the further borrowings/new borrowing financial facilities to be given by the State Bank of India ('SBI', for short) and other banks/financial institutions for running the aforesaid mill be declared to be authorised, valid and binding on the company and the petitioning creditors under section 536(2) of the Act. By Company Application No. 236 of 1984, prayer A-1 is sought to be inserted in Company Application No. 180 of 1984 whereby certain charges created by the mill company pending the main winding-up petition in favour of SBI, financing banker, as listed in the said prayer are sought to be validated under the very same provision. 2. In order to appreciate the circumstances under which the present company applications are filed, it will...
Tag this Judgment!Shantaben D/O. Mohanbhat Haribhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-04-1985
Reported in: (1985)1GLR560
J.P. Desai, J.1. The original plaintiff Bai Shantaben who is the appellant in this appeal is the wife of one Dahyabhai Patel, partner of the firm of M/s. Narsibhai Rambhai Patel. The firm of M/s. Narsibhai Rambhai Patel was a dealer and was duly registered under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Act'). The assessment proceedings were started against the said firm by issuing a notice on 25th September, 1964 and during the pendency of those proceedings.Dahyabilai Patel executed a sale-deed on 24-11-1966 in favour of his wife Shantaben and sold away the suit properties to her. The order of assessment was passed on 31-1-1967 and Rs. 26,149/- were found due from the said firm and an order was passed on 5-4-1972 to recover the dues by sale of the suit properties. The plaintiff Shantaben filed the present suit being Regular Civil Suit No, 725 of 1973 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Surat for a declaration that the suit ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Velo Alias Kasam Jusab
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-03-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR158
M.B. Shah, J.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 11th September, 1984 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Revision Application No. 321 of 1984 releasing the respondent on bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has not passed any orders keeping the respondent-accused in Jail custody, the State has filed this Revision Application.2. Against the respondent-accused the F.I.R. was lodged for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Sections 147,148 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code before Pradyumannagar Police Station, Rajkot city. The respondent was arrested and thereafter produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 3rd July, 1984. The learned Magistrate issued warrant sending the accused to the judicial custody and he was ordered to be produced before the Court on 12th July 1984. On 12th July, 1984 the matter was adjourned and the learned Magistrate ordered that th...
Tag this Judgment!Sumra Abu Haji Vs. Himatsinhji Juvansinhji Jadeja
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-03-1985
Reported in: (1985)2GLR741
S.A. Shah, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant (original plaintiff) whose suit has been dismissed on a preliminary ground that such a suit is not maintainable in law.2. The short facts leading to this appeal, briefly stated are, that the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit, being Special Civil Suit No. 78 of 1972 in the Court of the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Jamnagar, for a declaration and injunction that he had become the owner of the suit land, bearing Survey No. 311 admeasuring 3 acres and 8 gunthas situated in the Sim of Jamnagar, by adverse possession. It is averred in the plaint that the defendants were owners of the suit land, and they filed a suit, being Civil Suit No. 8 of 1956 against the appellant-plaintiff in the Court of the Mamlatdar, Jamnagar, for recovering possession under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906. In that suit before the Court of the Mamlatdar the present plaintiff filed a written statement and challenged the right of the present respon...
Tag this Judgment!New Swadeshi Mills of Ahmedabad Ltd. Vs. Dye-chem Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-02-1985
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas183(Guj)
Poti, C.J.1. We have been postponing the disposal of this appeal from time to time, just as the learned single judge whose judgment is under appeal did when the petition for winding up was pending before him, in the hope that the appellant company may be able to place before us some feasible proposal for revival, but we notice that even vow the appellant is not in a position to present any scheme for the purpose of reviving the company either immediately or in the immediate future. The winding-up petition was moved against the appellant company by one of the creditors at a time when the company ceased to function. The company has two textile units employing about 8,000 workers. It is engaged in the manufacture of textiles. Both the textile units are situated in the city of Ahmedabad. The authorised capital of the company is Rs. 1,50,00,000 and the subscribed capital of Rs. 98,20,725. It is said that the appellant-company incurred a loss of Rs. 580 lakhs in the financial year 1983-84. I...
Tag this Judgment!Kailashben Arvindkumar Joshi Vs. Arvindbhai Ratilal Joshi and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-01-1985
Reported in: (1985)2GLR761
M.B. Shah, J.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 17th August, 1984 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate (Court No. 17), Ahmedabad in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 37 of 1984 the petitioner has filed this Revision Application.2. It is the case of the petitioner-wife that the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Mehmedabad had passed an order in her favour under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Old) and had awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 110/ - per month. She is residing at Ahmedabad, but she was compelled to file application for maintenance before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mehmedabad, District Kaira because her husband was residing at Mehmedabad. After the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code under Section 126 of the Code she is entitled to file an application for maintenance where she is residing. She. therefore, filed Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 37 of 1984 before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Ahmedab...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›