Gujarat Court September 1985 Judgments
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Minaxiben Ranchhodbhai Ch ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-30-1985
Reported in: 2(1986)ACC143
S.A. Shah, J.1. Mr. D.F. Amin, learned advocate for the original claimant (respondent No. 1) states that his client has already attained majority and he undertakes to file Vakalatnama duly signed by her in his favour and requests that the cause title of the proceedings be amended showing respondent No. 1 as major. Statement as per above is recorded and request made is granted.2. Mr. D.F. Amin, learned advocate for respondent No. 1, and Mr. M.D. Pandya, learned advocate for the appellant-corporation, state that a compromise outside the court between respondent No. 1 and the appellant has been arrived at, whereunder respondent No. 1 has agreed that out of the amount deposited by the appellant-corporation before the Tribunal and which is at present lying with the Bank in Fixed Deposit, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is to be refunded to the appellant corporation in full and final settlement of the dispute between the appellant-corporation and respondent No. 1. The appellant-corporation is to withd...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Makwana Vs. Jagdishkumar Karsandas and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-30-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR710
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The petitioner is a Shop Inspector serving with the Rajkot Municipal Corporation, Rajkot. He filed complain against opponent No. 1 original accused alleging that the opponent-accused had contravened the provisions of Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), inasmuch as he had kept open his establishment on the weekly and that he taken work from the servant Rajubhai Ladharam. It was also alleged that the weekly holiday was notified and the visit book was not produced when demanded. On these allegations it was alleged that the accused had contravened the provisions of Section 18(1) of the Act and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 52(b) and had also contravened the provisions of Section 51 punishable under Section 52(e) of the Act. In support of the allegations, the appellant-original complainant examined himself examined other two witnesses also. He produced the order passed by the Deputy Municipal Commission...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Smt. Jamnabai Topandas and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-27-1985
Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Guj)283
B. S. Kapadia, J. - The following question has been referred by the Tribunal to this Court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, additional compensation of Rs. 5,72,792 awarded by the ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jamnagar, is includible in the total wealth of the assessee for each of the assessment years under reference ?'2. The short facts leading to the present reference may be stated as under :3. The assessee had purchased lands bearing Survey Nos. 225(2) and 225(4) admeasuring about 11 acres at Jamnagar in December, 1956. The lands were acquired under the provisions of the land on 15-8-1960. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation of Rs. 24,293. In the Reference under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jamnagar, increased the compensation to Rs. 5,72,892. However, the Gujarat High Court on appeal by the State Government determined the compensation at Rs. 24,293.4. The WTO included while m...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Sanyojan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Surajben and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Guj118; (1985)2GLR1340
Majmudar, J.1. This appeal from order has been referred to a larger bench by our learned brother J. P. Desai, J. by a referring order dated 29-8-1984/4-9-1984 as according to the learned Judge, various important questions are required to be resolved by a larger bench. That is how the appeal from order has been placed before this bench for final disposal.2. * * * * * * I. Factual backdrops : - The dispute in the present proceedings centres round possession of erstwhile survey number 196 of the then village Vasna in Ahmedabad city taluka which has been given final plot No. 603 under the town planning scheme No. 21 - Vasna and it admeasures 2 acres 38 gunthas. The Government of Gujarat in exercise of its powers under the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') proposed to acquire the aforesaid land for the purpose of constructing houses for a co-operative society viz. Sanyojan Co-operative Housing Society Limited. The said s...
Tag this Judgment!Chandulal Alias Maganlal Devchand Vs. B.B. Chavda Superintendent of Cu ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR500
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The present revision application is field by the original accused against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge Surat, in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1980 dismissing his appeal filed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat in Criminal Summary Case No. 20 of 1979.2. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, by his order dated 7-1-1980 convicted the accused for the offence under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act and ordered him to undergo R.I, for one month and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to further undergo R.I, for one month. The aforesaid order has been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surat by his order dated 29th April 1980 in the aforesaid appeal.3. The short facts leading to the present revision application are as under.4. On 7-11-1973 in the late hours of night one Shri Pesi Palia, the then Customs Inspector, Surat received a secret information and therefore he apprised the Sup...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Vimlaben Bhailalbhai Vs. Motavar Chhotabhai Ishwarbhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR270
R.A. Mehta, J.1. This Revision by the judgment creditor arises from execution of a money decree. The suit was decreed in 1974 by compromise. On August 3, 1975 in the course of the execution of the decree, three persons stood as sureties for the satisfaction of the decretal amount and bound themselves to pay the amount in case the principal debtor failed to pay the same. This bond was written and executed below the aforesaid warrant itself. By an order dt. 11.2.80 passed by the Debt Settlement Officer ex. 53. under the Rural Debtors Act the principal debtor was discharged from this debt.2. The sureties contended before the Executing Court that in view of the judgment debt of the principal debtor having been wiped off, the sureties cannot be proceeded against in execution for recovery of the debt which has been wiped, off according to law because their liability is only for the payment of the debt and in co-extensive with that of the debtor.3. The executing court upheld the contention of...
Tag this Judgment!Food Corporation of India Employees Union (Ahmedabad Unit) and ors. Vs ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-24-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR341
R.C. Mankad, J.1. A short question which arises for my consideration in this petition is whether Food Corporation of India, respondent No. 1 herein, had power and authority to treat the dearness allowance (D.A. for short) upto 320 points of twelve monthly average of the All India Average Consumer Price Index for industrial workers (general)(1960-100) as on January 1, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.I.') as pay for the purpose of payment of House Rent Allowance 'H.R.A.' for short) to its employees working in Ahmedabad which is classified as 'A' class city and pay such allowance at the rate payable to the Central Government employees.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and is recognised by respondent No. 1 Corporation. Petitioner No. 2 is the Secretary of petitioner No. 1 Union. Petitioner No. 3 is an Association registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, and is also recognised by respondent No. 1 Corporation. Petitioner No. 4 is the Secreta...
Tag this Judgment!Datu Chimanrao MaraThe Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-24-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1998; (1986)2GLR1044
J.P. Desai, J.1. 1.to 18. X X X X X19. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has sentenced the accused appellant to imprisonment for life for the offence of murder and there cannot be any quarrel with the sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge for the said offence, but the learned trial Judge has given following directions while sentencing the accused to imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.:It is further directed that the sentence of imprisonment for life, imposed on the accused, shall last as long as the life of the accused lasts.The question is whether the learned trial Judge could have given such a direction while imposing the sentence of imprisonment for life for the offence of murder.20. The Supreme Court had an occasion to consider in the case of Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra : 1961CriLJ736a as to how long the prisoner has to remain in jail when he is sentenced to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court held in that case th...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rasid Abdul Hamid Shaikh Vs. Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-24-1985
Reported in: (1986)2GLR1120; (1986)2GLR759
M.B. Shah, J.1. This is an instance where detention order is dealt with by the officers of State Government in a casual and cavalier fashion.2. The detenu has challenged the detention order dated 1-6-85 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, under Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Ordinance, 1985. The grounds of detention are annexed to the petition at Annexure 'B' wherein it is alleged that the petitioner was required to be detained because he was a person known for illegally selling liquor and that because of the said activity fear and terror in the mind of the persons staying in the locality was created. Three instances of prohibition cases in which the detenu was acquitted are relied upon and also one case wherein investigation was not complete is relied upon. It is also admitted that along with the grounds of detention the statements of two police constables were furnished to the detenu wherein in identical terms they have stated that the...
Tag this Judgment!Hashmukhlal Harjivandas Sanghvi Vs. Ishwarlal Jethalal Parekh and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR257
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. The petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 26th August 1985 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Surat, whereby the court had appointed a Commissioner with the direction to prepare a Panchnama of the local inspection in the presence of the parties and there was a further direction that if the premises are found locked, the same may be sealed by the Commissioner.2. Mr. K.G. Vakharia, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of the trial court is wholly without jurisdiction and that it is likely to cause irreparable loss and injury to the present petitioner. He therefore urges that the said order be quashed and set aside under the revisional powers of this Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.3. Mr. S.M. Shah, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 who are original plaintiffs, has urged that the present revision is not maintainable as it does not fall within the scope of Section 115 of the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »