Gujarat Court February 1985 Judgments
Natvarlal Maganlal AmIn (Deed. Through His Heirs and Lrs.) and ors. Vs ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-1985
Reported in: (1985)1GLR533
J.P. Desai, J.1. The facts leading to the filing of this Second Appeal have been stated in details in the judgment of the Courts below; and hence I do not propose to reiterate them. I will briefly state the facts so far as they are necessary fur understanding the questions of law involved in this Second Appeal, which questions have been formulated as substantial questions of law at the time of the admission of this appeal by this Court.2. Amin Natvarlal Maganlal (original defendant) who died pending the suit was the real brother of the plaintiff Amin Thakorbhai Maganbhai. There was dispute between the parties about some joint family properties and the dispute was referred to two arbitrators, viz. Jashbhai Shivabhai Amin and Jamnadas Chhotabhai Amin. They gave their award on 7-7-1961. The award was accepted, according to the plaintiff, while the defendant did not admit that it was accepted by him. The plaintiff and the defendant both signed in token of accepting the award as per the say...
Tag this Judgment!BipIn Textile Dyeing and Printing Industries Vs. State of Gujarat and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-1985
Reported in: (1985)2GLR1138
J.P. Desai, J.1. The petitioner-original accused is being prosecuted in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jetpur. The case against the accused is registered as Criminal Case No. 116 of 1984. The accused was questioned by the Court under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to enable him to explain the evidence appearing against him. The accused gave replies to the questions put by the learned Judicial Magistrate during the course of: that statement and then he submitted an application at Ex. 12 stating therein that he wanted to file his written statement and it may be taken into consideration. Two decisions - one of the Allahabad High Court and another of the Supreme Court were also referred to in this application in support of the request. The learned Judicial Magistrate passed a speaking order below. Ex. 12 stating therein that in a summons trial case, there is no provision which permits an accused to file a written statement. The learned Judicial Magi...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanuprasad Manishanker Raval Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-1985
Reported in: (1985)2GLR759
J.P. Desai, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 437/75 for an offence punishable under Section 277 of the Indian Income-tax Act and sentenced to imprisonment for one day and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/- in default to undergo R.I. for three months more. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 498 of 1980 before this Court and this Court also dismissed the appeal on 20-12-84 confirming the sentence imposed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioner has paid up the fine in the Trial Court. He gave an application to the trial Court on 11-1-1985 stating therein that the sentence of imprisonment for one day should be interpreted as imprisonment till rising of the Court and he wanted to get the question decided by this Court. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate granted time to the petitioner to move this Court. The petitioner has filed this Miscellaneous Criminal Application before this Court f...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. Vs. the Steel Authority of India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-1985
Reported in: (1985)2GLR664
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is a petition by one limited Company and its Divisional Secretary in charge of one of its Divisions and the respondents herein are the Steel Authority of India Limited (popularly known as 'SAIL' and to be referred to as such for brevity's sake hereinafter) and the Union of India and its officers.2. This petition raises an interesting question of constitutional law and in this judgment we are required to deal with the scope and ambit of public authorities' powers which obviously are conferred on them to enable them to serve the public better rather than to make them boss over citizens.3. In order to understand the controversy, a few facts are required to be slated. The petitioner company, that is, Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. running Ambica Tubes Division, is engaged in the manufacture of steel tubes. For the purpose of manufacture of tubes, supply of raw material viz. hot-rolled strips in coils is required. The Government is in overall charge of the import of this raw m...
Tag this Judgment!Anujkumar Ravjibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-1985
Reported in: (1985)2GLR973
J.P. Desai, J.1. Police submitted a charge sheet against Rajendra Girdharlal Mehta and four others for offences of cheating, forgery, etc. A supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against one Dipakbhai Dwarkadas and the present petitioner Anujkumar Ravjibhai Patel also for the same offences. The petitioner accused No. 7 in the trial Court gave an application on 10-1-1984 running into about eight typed pages requesting the Court to discharge him as there was no material to frame charge against him. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, however, framed charge against all the accused including the petitioner on 8-8-1984. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate did not pass any speaking order as to why he was not inclined to discharge this petitioner but to frame charge against him. Being dissatisfied with the charge framed against him, the original accused No. 7 Anujkumar has filed this petition for quashing the charge framed against him.2. Now, ordinarily one would not expect th...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Khersha Sajanshah Mutvalli Vs. the Bhuj Municipality and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Guj1; (1985)1GLR437
1. The present Second Appeal is filed by the original plaintiff. In this appeal the following two substantial questions of law are formulated. (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the true legal position, the lower Appellate Court was right in law in holding that the appellant being merely a mutawalli had no right to file the present suit?(2) Whether the lower Appellate Court was right in holding that in the absence of a notice served upon the Wakf Board under S. 56 of the Wakf Act 1954, the present suit was not maintainable?2. The relevant facts leading to the present appeal may be stated as under: -The plaintiff has filed the suit against defendant 1, the Bhuj Municipality, for declaration that defendant 1 has no right to make use of suit Kabrastan or to make Park or make any other construction on the suit Kabrastan which is owned and is in possession of the plaintiff that is Mutawalli and for permanent injunction to restrain defendant 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopaldas Bakubhal Rana Vs. Lunavada Nagar Panchayat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-1985
Reported in: (1985)2GLR1047
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner who is one of the members of Lunawada Nagar Panchayat constituted under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), has challenged a resolution passed by the said panchayat by which a motion of no confidence was passed against the Chairman of the Panchayat, respondent No. 2 herein Kamlashanker Bhuleshwar Dave. Mr. A. H. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner requested me to permit transposition of respondent No. 2 as petitioner No. 2 in order to meet the preliminary objection raised by the respondents to the effect that the person who is affected by no confidence motion was remaining in the background and. was not interested in challenging the said resolution. Respondent No. 2 is accordingly permitted to be transposed as petitioner No. 2 at the oral request of Mr. Mehta. The impugned resolution passing motion of no confidence against petitio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›