Gujarat Court October 1986 Judgments
Devjibhai Kalabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-21-1986
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1135; (1987)2GLR741
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioner who is a detenu under the provisions of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (the Act' for short), has challenged the order of his preventive detention passed by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Gujarat, Food and Civil Supplies Department, by order and in the name of Governor of Gujarat, at annexure 'B' dt. 24-7-1986. It recites that the Government of Gujarat is satisfied with respect to the petitioner that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities i.e. petroleum product (kerosene) essential to the community, it is necessary to preventively detain him and, therefore, the impugned order is passed The petitioner was also supplied with grounds of detention of even date. The grounds of detention are in Gujarati and are at annexure 'D' to the petition.2. Mr. D.D. Vyas, learned Advocate for the petitioner amongst others, cont...
Tag this Judgment!Manjibhai Issabhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-17-1986
Reported in: (1987)2GLR782
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. The petitioner herein has challenged the judgment and order dated 25-6-1986 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narol (Ahmedabad-Rural) whereby the learned Judge had held that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail as the charge-sheet is not filed within 90 days. However, the learned Judge has ordered that the petitioner will surrender after the charge-sheet is filed. The reason given by the learned Judge is that the charge-sheet was not filed within 90 days. Therefore, in his view, the accused person must be released on bail on this ground only upto the time the charge-sheet is submitted. After the charge-sheet is submitted, according to the learned Judge, the accused must surrender and seek the bail on the merits of the case.2. This conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge is not correct. There is nothing in the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to suggest such an interpretation. Although it is possible to imagine that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kaushik Jagmohan Upadhyaya Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-16-1986
Reported in: (1987)2GLR737
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Special Civil Application is to declare Rule 5(3)(b) of the Gujarat Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1961 which is Annexure-F to the petition as ultra vires, unconstitutional, illegal and void and to direct the respondent by appropriate writ, order or direction to appoint the petitioner to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class in Gujarat Judicial Service Class II (Junior Branch) and to give him the benefit of seniority as if he has been appointed by letter dated 10-6-1986 alongwith other selectees. The short facts of this case are that the petitioner, in response to the advertisement issued by Gujarat Public Service Commission dated 30-6-1984, applied for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). He was called for elimination test on 30-9-1984 and in that test, the petitioner was taken in for the purpose of appearing for interview. On 16-10-1985, the petitioner was called for an interview and selected for the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Minal Rameshchandra
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-1986
Reported in: [1987]167ITR507(Guj); [1987]66STC294(Guj)
A.P. Ravani, J.1. 'Adopt a device and avoid payment of tax', can such a course be accorded approval of judicial process 2. In addition to the four question referred to us the aforesaid question is also required to be answered in the light of the facts that follow : The assessee is an individual deriving income from share of profits from M/s. Star Radio Electric Company and M/s. Alloys Metal Casting Corporation. The assessee also derives income from dividend and interest. The assessment year under consideration is 1971-72. The previous year is the year ending on March 31, 1971, for the assessment year in question. The assessee filed a return of income on November 30, 1971, and showed total income of Rs. 40,480. A notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued by the Income-tax officer. During the course of assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee along with her mother and brother had become a partner in the firm o...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakrishan Biharilal Vs. Chatursingh Govindsingh Thakar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-08-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Guj220; (1987)1GLR419
ORDER1. This revision application is directed against the judgment and order passed by the appellate Bench reversing the judgment and order of the Executing Court. The Executing Court had held that the decree for possession in favour of the dead plaintiff was a nullity and was not executable. However, the lower appellate court came to a contrary conclusion. Hence, the judgment-debtor has come in revision.2. Civil Suit No. 234 of 1977 was filed by Sheth Chimanlal Popatlal through his general power of attorney holder Chatursinh Govindsinh. The suit for possession on the ground of arrears of rent came to be decreed on 21-4-1981. Thereafter, the said power of attorney holder filed the execution, application on 30-7-1981 as the power of attorney holder of Sheth Chimanlal Popatlal. In the execution application, the judgment debtor raised an objection that the plaintiff (principal) Sheth Chimanlal Popatlal had expired on 14-8-1978, about 2 years and 8 months prior to the passing of the decree...
Tag this Judgment!Kishore Amrutlal Patel Vs. Rajiv Takru and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-08-1986
Reported in: 1988CriLJ826; (1987)2GLR1031
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioner who is son of the detenu Amratlal Mohanlal Patel, has challenged the order of his father's detention which is at Annexure 'A' to the petition. The impugned order of detention dated 21-7-1986 recites that the District Magistrate, Rajkot is satisfied that with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supply of commodities essential to the community, it is necessary to detain the detenu and consequently, the authority has passed the impugned order in exercise of his power as conferred by Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 ('the Act' for short). The detenu was supplied with grounds of detention of even date a copy whereof is at Annexure 'B' to the petition. The grounds against the detenu inter alia allege that the detenu as the proprietor of Patel Amrutlal Mohanlal Oil Mill, Rajkot, was carrying on manufacture of groundnut oil in...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Arora and Sons Vs. Meghraj and Sons
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-08-1986
Reported in: (1987)1GLR427
R.A. Mehta, J.1. This revision application by the original defendants Nos. 1 and 3 is directed against the order of conditional leave to defend on petitioners-defendants depositing jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 3,500/-. The summary suit was for recovery of Rs. 11,400/- for the goods said to have been sold and delivered to the defendants.2. The defendants submitted that the allegations of the plaintiff were denied and there were triable issues and, therefore, unconditional leave ought to have been granted. It is submitted that prior to filing of the application for leave to defend, inspection of account books, bill books, vouchers and delivery slips etc. was sought, but the plaintiff had given simple copies of bills and no accounts were shown and this created some doubt about the genuineness of the accounts. It is also contended that the plaintiff had produced delivery slip Ex. 17/2 dated 26-6-1979 for which payment was made and no amount was due on that delivery slip. The descript...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Harishkumar S. Vyas and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-06-1986
Reported in: (1987)2GLR931
ORDERHeard Mr. A.D. Padiwal and Mr. D.K. Trivedi, Addl. Public Prosecutor.Mr. Padiwal states that as the conviction and sentence are being set aside, the fine, if paid by the accused, should be ordered to be refunded. The request seems to be quite reasonable. In view of this, it is directed that if fine is paid by the respondents-accused, the same should be refunded to them....
Tag this Judgment!Prema Korgaokar Vs. Mustak Ahmed
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-03-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Guj106; (1987)1GLR462
R.A. Mehta, J.1. This appeal by the original-plaintiff is against the judgment and decree dismissing her suit for damages of Rs. One lac based on the ground of breach of promise of marriage.2. The case of the appellant is that she is Goanese Brahmin coming from poor family. In 1978, she had started working as a part time typist in a typing institution Good luck Typing Centre in Santacruz (East) Bombay which was run by the respondent-defendant. The defendant was also working as a Stenotypist in Indian Oil Corporation at Bombay. The respondent-defendant developed friendly relations with the appellant-plaintiff. In 1980, the defendant was transferred from Bombay to Rajkot office of Indian Oil Corporation. The appellant-plaintiff accompanied the respondent-defendant to Rajkot on promise to find out a job for her. Relying on him, she came to Rajkot on 23-3-1981 and stayed with the respondent-defendant in Ashok Hotel for three days. The respondent-defendant being a Muslim, although married, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashokkumar Chimanlal Modi Vs. Chinubhai Nanalal Shah and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-03-1986
Reported in: (1987)2GLR888
ORDERRule issued on 22-2-85 is hereby made absolute. Costs to be costs in the cause.Dt. 4-12-1985 Sd/- M.S. DesaiJudge,Court No. 13.5. It was urged by Mr. Shethna that because the said suit was filed and because the aforesaid orders were obtained on Ex. 5, original opponent had filed the above application for staying the Chapter proceedings in the first place. He further submitted, and it has also been specifically stated in paragraph 3 of the above application before this Court, that as the learned Magistrate by rejecting the said application presented by orig. opponent Ashokkumar had observed that the various decisions cited by original opponent to the effect that proceedings could be closed but the same could not be stayed, the orig. opponent Ashokkumar was constrained to file another application for closing the chapter proceedings on the very same grounds. It is, therefore, pertinent to note that the aforesaid challenge regarding staying of the proceedings as well as closing of the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›