Gujarat Court February 1986 Judgments
Abdula Mamad Mithani and Etc. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-10-1986
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1880; (1986)2GLR628
A.M. Ahmadi, J. 1. These writ petitions arise out of the find of contraband goods from a mechanised vessel 'Umed-Pasa' MNV 120 which was intercepted on 10th February 1985 near Piroton Island off the coast of Jamnagar. The vessel was tindelled by Daud Mamad Mithani and had as many as fifteen crew men on board at the time of its interception. The registered owner of the vessel was one Aminabibi, the maternal aunt of the tindel Daud. The said vessel left Dubai with a cargo of wet dates on 5th February 1985 which it was expected to unload at Jamnagar. The officers of the Customs Department received intelligence reports on 9th February 1985 that the said vessel tindelled by 'Daud was carrying contraband gold and other articles in secret cavities specially prepared for that purpose and was likely to touch either Jamnagar or Porbandar port for shedding the same. On receipt of this information, field formations were alerted to intensify sea patrolling and to intercept the vessel. 'Al-Rafiqui',...
Tag this Judgment!Revaben P. Parmar and ors. Vs. R.R. Yadav and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-1986
Reported in: 2(1986)ACC423
I.C. Bhatt, J.1. This petition has been filed challenging the orders at Annexures B and C to the petition, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaira at Nadlad, in Motor Accident Claims Cases Nos. 482 of 1982 and 484 of 1982. By Application Exh. 99, fresh summons were required to be issued to (1) one Dotor from Civil Hospital Ahmedabad and (2) one R.T.O. Officer from Bombay, as though the summons were issued to them, they were not returned duly served because of the Anti-Reservation Agitation. Application Exh. 100 was made for exhibiting one document, a namely, Certificate issued by the R.T.O. Bombay. Below Application Exh. 99 the following order was passed:Heard. Rejected as sufficient opportunity is given but of no avail.Sd/-F.C. Mehta,M.A.C.T. (A),21-9-1985.Application Exh. 100 was also rejected. The orders rejecting both these applications have been challenged in this petition.2. Now, so far as the order passed below Application Exh. 99 is concerned the ground given by the...
Tag this Judgment!Natwar Rubber Product Vs. G.S. Kagzi and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-1986
Reported in: 1987(12)ECC333; 1987(27)ELT216(Guj); (1986)2GLR199
Shah, J.1. The petitioners herein were at the relevant time doing the job-work of twisting wires of M/s. Bharat Wires Industries, Udhna, and by this petition they have among other orders passed by the subordinate Excise Authorities challenged the order dated 2.3.1976 (Annexure 'I' to the petition) of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Insurance, passed in revision application, whereby the petitioners were required to pay excise duty on the ground that they had manufactured excisable goods. The said order appears to have been passed under rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). 2. In order to appreciate the various contentions raised by the petitioners, it would be relevant to reproduce short facts. It is not disputed that the petitioners were doing the job-work of twisting wires of M/s. Bharat Wires Industries, Udhna. The petitioners received notice dated 26/27.3.1971 from the Supe...
Tag this Judgment!Mahboob Ibrahim Patel Vs. B.K. Jha, Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ2; (1986)2GLR1358
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present Special Criminal Application for quashing the order of detention passed against the petitioner's brother-in-law and for issuing appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the continued detention of the detenu bad. The brother-in-law of the present petitioner is detained by the order dated 29th September 1985 by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (16 of 1985). The grounds for the detention have been furnished to the detenu on the same day i.e. on 29th September 1985. Inter alia it is alleged in the grounds that the detenu has committed offences punishable under. Sections 365, 326, 323, 504 and 114 IPC and offence Under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act, which is registered as C. R. No. 186/84 of Gaekwad Haveli Police Station which is pending in the Court. It is also alleged that he has also committed offences under Sees. 324, 504 an...
Tag this Judgment!Continental Construction Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Guj66; (1986)2GLR884
B.K. Mehta, J.1. By the present, petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner Companies challenge the decision of the State Government refusing pre-qualification of the Petitioners for the works of construction of concrete dam across Narmada river (hereinafter referred to as the 'Dam Construction'), which decision has been intimated by the 2nd Respondent vide his letter of Jan. 23, 1985, as bad in law and void on various grounds averred in the petition. A few facts need be noticed in order to appreciate the challenge to the impugned decision.2. The first Petitioner Company is a multi-national Company engaged in the business of constructing dams, hydroelectric projects, irrigation projects, harbors, air-ports, canals, water supply projects etc., and has executed works of the value of exceeding Rs. 600 crores outside India during the period of last nine years. The first Petitioner Company claims that it has been listed as one of the largest international construction compa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›