Gujarat Court October 1985 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.
Mohammedbhikhan Hussainbhai and Etc. Vs. the Manager, Chandrabhanu Cin ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Guj209; (1986)1GLR1
ORDER1-2. x x x x 3. The questions referred for consideration of the larger bench are whether the Labour Courts under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and the Industrial Disputes Act and Industrial Courts under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and Industrial Tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act are Courts and Courts subordinate to the High Court in terms of S. 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, and whether the Board of Nominees functioning under S. 96 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 as well as the Co-operative Tribunals constituted under the said Act are courts and courts subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 4. In order to answer the aforesaid questions, it will be necessary to have a look at the relevant statutory provisions holding the field.11. Statutory provisions :- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines contempt of courts ~s per section 2 of the said Act. Civil contempt is defined by section ...
Minor Rehman Suleman Represented by His First Friend and Guardian Sule ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-1985
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC568
R.C. Mankad, J.1. Appellant's learned Counsel states that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is not entitled to claim more than Rs. 7,500/- by way of additional compensation. He has issued a certificate to that effect which is placed on record. The appellant is therefore, permitted to reduce the claim in appeal to Rs. 7,500/-. Mr. R.H. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 Insurance Company states that the Insurance Company will pay to the appellant additional compensation of Rs. 7,500/- inclusive of costs and interest and the said amount will be deposited with the Tribunal within six weeks from today. Since in the opinion of the learned Counsel the settlement of the claim in appeal at Rs. 7,500/- is in the interest of the minor and since the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has agreed to deposit the amount as aforesaid, the appellant's learned Counsel seeks permission to withdraw this appeal. The settlement arrived at betwe...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. the Gujarat State Road Transport ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-1985
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC154
R.C. Mankad, J.1. These appeals arise out of the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux). Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol awarding compensation to various claimants in claim applications arising out of the collision which took place between the bus of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation ('Corporation' for short) and the truck owned and driven by second appellant which was insured with the first appellant in each of these appeals.2. The accident out of which these appeals arise, took place at about 8.30 am. on June 8, 1981 on the high way leading from Ahmedabad to Dhandhukan. The truck was going towards Ahmedabad while the S.T. Bus (but for short) was going in the opposite direction on the high way when collision occurred. The Tribunal has found that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck. it is this finding which is sought to be challenged by the appellant in these appeals.2. It is contende...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajuben Rambhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-17-1985
Reported in: 2(1986)ACC40
R.C. Mankad, J.1. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated February 18, 1985, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Rajkot District, Rajkot awarding compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to respondents Nos. 1 to 5 original claimants.The only contention which is raised on behalf of the appellant is that the Tribunal has erred in holding that deceased Harsur Mandal was walking on the road when he was knocked down by the motor vehicle in question causing fatal injuries to the deceased. It is submitted that according to the statement made by the deceased before police, soon after the accident, he was travelling by the motor vehicle as a passenger and that he had paid one rupee to the driver of the vehicle. It is submitted that in the face of this statement made by the deceased before police, it cannot be believed that deceased was walking on the road when he was knocked down by the vehicle. No attempt is made to prove the alleged statement ...
Gajanand Maganlal Mehta Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-17-1985
Reported in: 1987CriLJ374
ORDERA.P. Ravani, J.1. Human weakness or wickedness; either of the two or both of them together may be the cause of sexual offences. If the offence is on account of wickedness, the accused naturally deserves no sympathy.2. The appellant-accused was charged for offence Under Section 376, Penal Code, on the allegation that on the night of 24-4-1983, between 9.00 and 10.30 p.m. he committed rape on the prosecutrix 'S' (P. W. 1, Exh. 12) on the boundary of village Doliya, district Surendranagar and thereby committed offence Under Section 376, Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge held the accused guilty of the offence charged against him and ordered him to undergo R. I. for seven years. The appellant-accused has challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence in this appeal.3. It was the prosecution case that the prosecutrix 'S' (P. W. 1), at the relevant time was aged about 16 years and was studying in 9th standard and was staying at Wadhwan Vika...
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Dhuljibhai Dhulabhai Pate ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-16-1985
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC5
R.C. Mankad, J.1. This appeal by Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation is directed against the judgment and award dated November 30, 1984; passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Panchmahals at Godhra, awarding compensation of Rs. 21,490/- to respondent No. 1 for the injuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident.2. The first contention which is urged on behalf of the appellant is that the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation of Rs. 10,500/- under the head of Future Economic Loss. It is urged that a result of the injury sustained by him the claimant is not likely to suffer any economic loss; and in any case, having regard to the age of the claimant, the Tribunal ought not to have applied the multiplier of 15. It appears from the evidence discussed by the Tribunal that the claimant was 50 years old and had suffered injury which resulted in permanent disability to the extent of 3 1/2 per cent. The Tribunal assessed the annual income of the claimant at Rs. 20,000/...
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Jagannath Gorakhanath and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-16-1985
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC150
R.C. Mankad, J.1. This appeal by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux) No. 4 at Ahmedabad awarding a total compensation of Rs. 56,000/- to the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 are original claimants. The claim in the appeal is restricted to Rs. 15,000/-. In other words, the appellant is not challenging the entire award but restricts its claim to Rs. 15,000/- out of the amount awarded.2. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 the claimants are awarded compensation for the death of deceased Nirmalaben who was wife of respondent No. 1 and mother of respondents Nos. 2 to 4. Two contentions are raised on behalf of the appellant, namely, (i) that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 400/- per month and (ii) that it has also erred in awarding compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for loss of consortium etc. in addition to loss of economic utility of the deceased. We do not consider it necessar...
Suleman Isa Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-15-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR529
R.J. Shah, J. 1. This is a group of applications wherein separate but similar orders all dated 19th September 1984 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act, for short) have been challenged by the petitioners. All the petitions arise out of the same facts. All the petitioners are represented by same counsel. With the consent of parties, in the aforesaid circumstances, all the petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. A few facts necessary for the purpose of this judgment need to be stated. Some information was received by the Customs Officer of the Diamond Harbour Preventive Unit, Diamond Harbour, 24 Perganas to the effect that some contraband goods were likely to be carried in some vehicles coming from Kakdwip, a place 30 kms. South of Kulpi 'More', towards Calcutta. Pursuant to the same, the said cargo was intercepted and a Jeep and an Ambassador car we...
Supdt. of Post Offices and ors. Vs. Pratap Ghelabhai Maru and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-14-1985
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC221
R.C. Mankad, J.1. This appeal by the original opponent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 is directed against the judgment and award dated April 29, 1985, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Main) at Rajkot (Tribunal for short) by which compensation of Rs. 70,200/- was awarded to respondent No. 1. original claimant.2. This appeal arises out of the accident which took place at about 7.30 or 8.00 A.M. on March 23, 1952 at the cross roads krown as Jubili Chowk in Rajkot. Claimant respondent No. 1 herein was driving auto-rickshaw and he was proceeding from Para Bazar to General Post Office that is from east to west. Applicant No. 3 original opponent No. 1 was driving matador van owned by appellants Nos. 1 and 2, original opponents 2 and 3 from Trikam Bag Bedipara Post Office that is from south to north. According to the claimant when he was proceeding from east to west, the matador van ('van' for short) driven by opponent No. 1 came from south and collision took place at the cross roads. It is sub...
Jitubhai Jibhaibhai Solanki Vs. District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-14-1985
Reported in: (1986)2GLR995
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought appropriate writ, direction or order by way of habeas corpus or for any suitable writ, direction or order directing the concerned respondents to set at liberty the detenu who is detained under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Ordinance, 1985 ('The Ordinance' for short).2. In order to appreciate the grievance made on behalf of the detenu in this connection, it will be necessary to have a look at the backdrop of the relevant facts pertaining to this application.3. Relevant facts: Petitioner - Jitubhai Solanki who is resident of village Neja in Khambhat Taluka of Kaira district is preventively detained by the District Magistrate, Kaira by his order dated 2-8-85 passed in exercise of his powers under Section 3(2) of the Ordinance. The said order is at Annexure 'A' to the petition. The order is in Gujarati. When translated into English, relevant recitals...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »