Gujarat Court April 1986 Judgments
State of Gujarat Vs. Jaswantsingh Purensingh and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-1986
Reported in: (1987)1GLR255
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The present application is filed by the State against the order passed by the learned City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, on 16th April, 1986 in Criminal Revision Application No. 107 of 1986. By the said order the learned City Sessions Judge has allowed the revision application and set aside the order dated 7-4-1986 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 4 at Ahmedabad, in connection with the Crime Register No. 161 of 1986 of Kagdapith Police Station insofar as it relates to Jaswantsingh Purensingh, the opponent No. 1 here. By the said order it was further ordered by the learned City Sessions Judge that on Jaswantsingh furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-with one solvent surety in the like amount, he shall be released on bail.2. It may be stated that the facts of the case have been elaborately stated by the learned City Sessions Judge in his judgment and hence, it would not be necessary to state the facts in detail. However, short facts which ar...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-23-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Guj113; (1987)1GLR437
Ravani, J.1. In the annals of history, it is difficult to discover dictator, a feudal lord or a monarch, who openly discarded ' public interest ' and asserted his legal right to rule the people and consider 'public interest' as irrelevant. Even military dictators, while exploiting the people and inflicting miseries on them, cover their faces by the veil of 'Public interest' But in a democracy wedded to the welfare of the people and where the Constitution of the country has promised the people establishment of an egalitarian society based on socialistic principles, a nationalised bank (which is 'State' within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution) asserts through its senior counsel (Mr. M. S. Sanghvi) that the bank is under no legal obligation to take into consideration 'public interest' while executing a money decree and, therefore, it shall disregard the same. Shocking as it is, this is the stand of the bank and not a mere legal point raised by an attorney of the bank. Therefo...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Mukundmi Desai Vs. the Registrar, South Gujarat University, Sur ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-23-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Guj48
Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of our High Court in Special Civil Application No. 1810 of 1986. In that Special Civil Application, the main prayer is to quash the order at Annexure 'C' to the main petition wherein the South Gujarat University has passed orders against the appellant herein stating that the appellant used unfair means at the University Examination held in September 1985. that the result of the examination is cancelled and that the appellant cannot be permitted to appear at the examination till the end of academic year 1085-86. The learned single Judge of our High Court after referring to the elaborate arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein dismissed the petition at the admission stage itself. It is as against this order that the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed.2. The short facts of this case are that the appellant wrote F. Y. B.Com. examination he...
Tag this Judgment!Maheshwatiben and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-21-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Guj68; (1987)1GLR181
1. This is the appeal filed on behalf of two minors against the order passed by, the learned Civil Judge (S.P.) Baroda, rejecting their application to file the suit as indigent persons. The appellants are a daughter aged 15 years and a son aged 11 years, whose mother died in the family planning operation at Sayaji General Hospital, Baroda. It is not in dispute that the minors reside with their maternal grandfather, who is the guardian and next friend in the present proceedings. The learned Judge rejected the application on the grounds that the grandfather was not entitled to file the Application while the father was still alive and that the grandfather who is the guardian and next friend of the minors has me pay the Court-fees. It must be stated that both these grounds for rejection of the application are untenable. It is not correct to say that when the father is alive. The maternal grandfather cannot file a claim as a guardian and. next friend of the minors in this case here is no di...
Tag this Judgment!Shivram Antaiah Shetty Vs. Chimanlal Ambalal Trivedi and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-21-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Guj30
1. This is an appeal under 0. 43, Civil P.C. against the interlocutory order passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, whereby he vacated the ex parte ad interim injunction granted by it earlier while confirming other part of the interim relief. The dispute pertains to a shop called New Mysore Cafe, situated as Ellisbridge, Opposite Main Gate of Gujarat College at Ahmedabad. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal well be referred to as plaintiff and defendants. Originally the suit shop belonged to defendant 6 who is said to have transferred the suit shop to the defendant 1. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant 1 transferred the suit shop to the plaintiff in December 1981 for a consideration of Rs. 20.000/-. There was no writing executed between parties to record such an agreement. It is further the case of the plaintiff that under an oral agreement, the plaintiff paid Rs. 20,000/- to defendant 1 in December 1981 and defendant I handed ov...
Tag this Judgment!Leelaben Amratpuri Goswami Vs. Goswami Babupuri Dhanpuri and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1637; (1987)1GLR234
ORDERB.S. Kapadia, J.1. Both the above applications are filed by the original applicant Leelaben against her divorced husband Babupuri Dhanpuri.2. The short facts of the case leading to the filing of these petitions are that the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 were married according to Hindu rites about 11 years prior to the filing of the maintenance application at Palanpur. The respondent No. 1-husband used to physically and mentally torture the petitioner-wife. The husband had the bad habits and, therefore, marriage life of the petitioner was not happy. The petitioner was also driven out of the house. After great mental agony on the wife the husband obtained customary divorce from the wife. It was the case of the petitioner that the divorce deed was executed between the husband and wife on 14-11-1983 and after the divorce she was residing at her father's place. She was pregnant at the time of divorce and at the time of filing the application for maintenance child and the wife. It...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mahendrabhai R. Patel and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-1986
Reported in: (1987)1GLR154
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Special Civil Application is to quash the order of the Labour Court, Baroda, wherein the Labour Court has held that the subsequent notification changing the 'appropriate Government' in relation to a certain industry will not invalidate the reference made by the appropriate Government at the time the dispute was referred. Mr. Bhatt, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that by virtue of the notification dated 21-6-1985 the Central Government was specified as 'appropriate Government' for oil industry. At the time of the reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the appropriate Government was the State Government in respect of this particular industry. In as much as there is a change in the appropriate Government subsequent to the matter having been referred to the Labour Court under the powers conferred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, Mr. Bhatt, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitte...
Tag this Judgment!Kamlesh Haribhai Goradia Vs. Union of Indian (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-14-1986
Reported in: (1987)1GLR157
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The original petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge of October 4, 1985 dismissing his Special Civil Application praying fur appropriate writs, orders and directions to quash and set aside the moderation of his marks made by the Union Public Service Commission respondent No. 2 herein and to declare his result according to his original marks and for enjoining respondent No, 2-Commission to restore his original marks before the impugned moderation and consequently to modify the the merit list accordingly and for enjoining the Union of India to allocate the petitioner to Indian Administrative Services and to grant him suitable State cadre in light of his appropriate ranking on the basis of his original marks. A few facts need be noticed in order to understand the grievance of the petitioner in this appeal.2. The petitioner is a Commerce Graduate belonging to general category and was eligible to appear at the Civil Services Common Examination h...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mamta Narottamdas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-1986
Reported in: [1986]162ITR365(Guj)
Mankad, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has referred to use for our opinion the following questions under section 256(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Central Government Notification dated February 6, 1973, did not have the effect of converting the agricultural land in question into a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act with effect from a date prior to May 2, 1970 2. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the transfer of the asset in question by the assessee in May 1, 1970, did not give rise to any surplus assessable under the head 'Capital Gains' 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the valuation of the land in question (...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal Jivanbhai Patel Vs. Jesangbhai Nagjibhai Patel and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-1986
Reported in: 1988CriLJ255; (1987)1GLR209
ORDERB.S. Kapadia, J.1. The present revision application is arising out of the Chapter proceedings which were initiated at the instance of the present petitioner against the opponents Nos. 1 to 7. It is alleged that on 18-7-1982 at about 9.00 or 9.30 a.m. the petitioner was siting on his ota with his two sons and at that time the opponent 1 Jasangbhai Nagjibhai Patel came there and gave a threat that he would finish the petitioner and his family. However, the petitioner did not give any reply to him and he silently went inside his house. It is also alleged that there were number of Chapter cases between the petitioner and the opponents and number of criminal cases have been filed by them. In that view of the matter, the petitioner and his family members have apprehension that the opponents 1 to 7 will cause injury to the petitioner and his family members. It is also alleged that the petitioner is unable to go to his field all alone and, therefore, he made an application for taking secu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »