Gujarat Court July 1986 Judgments
Bhanuprasad Aditram Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-31-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1777; (1987)2GLR778
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Prison offence may be committed even when a prisoner is physically outside the prison. For such a prison offence he can be dealt with by the Prison authorities and if the incident is also an offence under provisions of any other law, the person concerned may also be convicted and sentenced for the offence under such ordinary law. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the prisoner who has been convicted for offence under the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act by a competent criminal court cannot be dealt with by the Jail authorities and no punishment can be imposed upon him by the Jail authorities. The aforesaid contention is required to be decided in the background of facts that follow.2. The petitioner is a prisoner. He was released on furlough commencing from Aug. 28, 1985 to Sept. 12, 1985. During this period he committed an offence under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act ('Gambling Act' for short) and was convicted and sentenced...
Tag this Judgment!Babubhai Ukabhai Vs. the State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1786; (1987)2GLR887
Gukulakrishnan, C.J.1. Rule. Mr. G. D. Bhatt, learned Addl. P.P., waives service of the rule.2. This is a petition filed by the prisoner praying parole for 15 days. The District Magistrate, as stated by Mr. G. D. Bhatt, has refused the parole on the ground that the prisoner has been committed to the jail only' recently and as such the application for parole cannot be granted. It is hardly a reason for refusal of parole. The Government of Gujarat, by its notifications, viz. Home Department Noti.No.Misc-1055/2064-J, Sachivalaya, Ahmedabad, dt. 31-12-1968 and Home Department No.Misc. 1065/2064-J/8-8-69, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, have given certain guidelines for the purpose of releasing the prisoners on parole. The District Magistrate can do well if he follows such guidelines and decides the matter on merits. The present refusal of the parole is on extraneous ground and as such it cannot be sustained. Hence, we direct the District Magistrate to consider the parole asked for by the prisone...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Maganlal Dhanjibhai Godhasara and anr. Vs. Patel Laxmidas Naranb ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-25-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Guj48; (1987)1GLR356
ORDER1. In case it lawyer files 'no-instruction' purshis and requests the Court to permit him to withdraw from the case, should the, Court straightway accept the request and permit the advocate to withdraw front the case, and thereafter should the court proceed further in absence of the litigant? These are the questions which have arisen in this revision application challenging the legality and validity of the order refusing to condone the delay in filing an application to set aside an ex parte decree.2. The petitioners are original defendants against whom the respondent-original plaintiff filed a suit inter alia praying that he was the owner of the suit property, i.e. land admeasuring 11 acres and 23gunthas, bearing survey No. 663 of village Supedi. Taluka Dhoraji, District Rajkot. The plaintiff also prayed for possession of the suit property. It appears that the case of the plaintiff was that he had purchased the suit land for it consideration of Rs. 5,000/- by sale deed dated April ...
Tag this Judgment!Jayendrasjnh Lalubha Jadeja Vs. District Superintendent of Police and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-24-1986
Reported in: (1987)1GLR331
R.A. Mehta, J.1. This revision application by the original plaintiff is directed against the order dated 11-11-1983 refusing amendment of the plaint. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the learned trial Judge has observed that amendment of pleading should be allowed by the Court liberally, yet the learned trial Judge has rejected the amendment by going into the merits of the contentions raised which could have been done only after the amendment is granted. Even though there is considerable force in the reasons given by the learned trial Judge for rejecting the grounds to be raised by way of amendment, the stage for the same would be reached only after the amendment is granted. Therefore, the amendment was required to be granted.2. The suit is against transfer of a Police Sub-Inspector, the plaintiff. By virtue of the interim order obtained in the Civil Suit in the year 1983, that interim injunction continues even after three years in 1986. Even though the r...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nagri Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-18-1986
Reported in: (1986)57CTR(Guj)304; [1987]166ITR292(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J. 1. The Revenue, being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal ' for short) refusing to refer the following question to us for our opinion, has filed this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (' Act ' for short) :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has been right in law in holding that interest under Section 216 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not chargeable '2. The Income-tax Officer framed an assessment by his order dated February 26, 1982, and directed charging of interest under Sections 215 and 216 of the Act. In this application, we are concerned only with the interest charged under Section 216 of the Act. While giving direction to charge interest under Section 216, the Income-tax Officer did not record a finding that the assessee had underestimated the advance tax payable by it and thereby reduced the amount payable in either of the first two ...
Tag this Judgment!Gohel Parbhatbhai Nathabhai Vs. Pandya Arwindkumar Ambalal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-18-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Guj160; (1987)1GLR307
ORDER1. The present revision application is filed by the original judgment-debtor in Dark hast No. 45 of 1975 pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (JD) Borsad, against the order passed by the learned Joint Dist. Judge, Kheda at Nadiad on 21-2-1981 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 201/80. The said appeal was filed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD) Borsad on 27-10-1975 in Exh. 1 in Regular Dark hast No. 45/75. By the said order the learned Civil Judge ordered that the judgment debtor be detained in civil prison till he undertakes not to enter the suit land. The learned Civil Judge also ordered that warrant for the arrest of the Judgment Debtor be issued after the judgment-creditor deposits in the court the amount of subsistence allowance for a period of one month.2. The short question that is raised in this revision application is whether in execution of a decree for permanent injunction the Court has power to detain the judgment-debtor in civil prison for mo...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Desai and Co. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-18-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Guj19; (1987)1GLR375
Maimudar, J.1. A short question falls for determination in this appeal. It runs as under: -Can the alleged arbitrary action of a Government company which is a State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution, emanating from the alleged breach of binding executive instructions issued to it by the Central Government for regulating the company's dealings with third parties with whom such company might have entered into contracts, be brought in challenge under Art. 226 of the Constitution for testing it on the anvil of Art. 14 of the Constitution.2. Factual backdrop: - In order to appreciate the aforesaid question in its correct perspective, the factual metrix leading to the present proceedings deserve to be noted at the outset. The appellant is a partnership firm which was appointed as dealer entrusted with the task of selling petroleum products in retail. The appellant was appointed by the respondent Corporation which is wholly owned by the Central Government. It is a Government c...
Tag this Judgment!Ranchhodbhai S. Dalwadi Vs. Gujarat Agricultural University and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-17-1986
Reported in: (1987)1GLR297
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The petitioner joined Government service as a Clerk with effect from 1st November, 1943. In due course he was promoted to the post of Superintendent in the Department of Agriculture when his services came to be loaned to the Gujarat Agricultural University which started functioning with effect from 1st June, 1972. While he was serving on deputation in the Agricultural University, a vacancy arose in the cadre of Legal Assistant and the petitioner being a Law Graduate and fully acquainted with departmental activities, was considered for appointment to the said post and was temporarily promoted as Legal Assistant in the scale of Rs. 350-850 (revised to Rs. 650-1200 with effect from 1st January 1973). Annexure 'A' to the petition is a copy of the order temporarily promoting the petitioner to the post of Legal Assistant as a stop-gap arrangement. By Annexure 'B' the pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 525/- in the pay scale of Rs. 350-850 with effect from 7th February 1...
Tag this Judgment!Kalidas Devji Mali Vaghari Vs. Police Commissioner, Baroda and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-17-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Guj80
ORDER57. The matter may now be placed before die Division Bench for passing appropriate final order.58. In my view, this order is not required to, be passed because, this order is already passed ,when the judgment was pronounced .'by the Full Bench and it is incorporated in the judgment of my learned brother Nanavati J.59. Order accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!P.W.D. Employees Union and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-16-1986
Reported in: (1987)2GLR1070; (1988)ILLJ524Guj
Mehta, J.1. A short but interesting question arises in this petition as to whether daily rated labourers on the Nominal Muster Roll of the Public Works Department (Irrigation) engaged for the purposes of diverse works in connection with construction and maintenance of medium size irrigation dam undertaken by the State Government as permitted by the Union Government with the assistance of the World Bank can be said to be 'workmen' within the definition of the term as given in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The question arises in the following circumstances. 2. The State Government had sought permission of the Union Government in 1972 for construction of Amli Dam over the river Ver in Mandvi taluka of Surat district. The Union Government granted the necessary administrative and technical sanction under the recommendation of the Central Water Power Commission in about April 1979 having estimated cost of Rs. 64.419 million. The object of the construction of the dam, int...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »