Gujarat Court August 1986 Judgments
Abdul Kader Mahomed Jhaveri Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-29-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Guj176; 1987(14)ECC81; (1987)1GLR537
Majmudar, J.1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution moved by the petition ex-party in person raises a short question for our consideration. The question is as to whether the authorities functioning under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('the Act' for short) have any power or authority to seize the passport of the petitioner who is alleged to have committed breach of the provisions of S. 29 of the Act.2. In order to appreciate this question, the factual matrix leading to the present proceedings will have to be noted at the outset. The petitioner contends that he is a foreign national and a citizen of Republic of South' Africa. That he entered India somewhere in October, 1981 on the passport issued by the Republic of South Africa. That the erstwhile passport issued by the Republic of South Africa on the basis of which he came to India' has expired in the meantime and that a new passport No. J- 1141089 has been issued by the Republic of South Africa and which is at p...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikhabhai Devshi Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-28-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Guj136; (1987)2GLR1178
R.A. Mehta, J.1. This matter came before the Full Bench on reference from the Division Bench as an important question regarding interpretation of R. 4(10) of the, Prisons,(Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 arises as to whether the word 'shall' is mandatory in the context of the provisions of R. 4(10) and more particularly its latter part or whether the word 'shall' can be construed as 'may' so as to enable the prison authorities to consider the request for furlough of a prisoner who has surrendered late after release on furlough or parole. Rule 4(10) makes the following reading : -R. 4: 'When prisoners shall not be granted furlough : The following categories of prisoners shall not be considered for release on furlough :(1) x x x x x x (10) Prisoners who have at any time escaped or attempted to escape from lawful custody or have, defaulted in any way in surrendering themselves at the appropriate time after release on parole or furlough.' 2. The contention of the petitioner is tha...
Tag this Judgment!Harjivan Purshottamdas Thanki Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-26-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Guj28; (1988)2GLR1270
Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Special Civil Application is to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions to quash and set aside the impugned order at Annexure 'J' which is an order passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Steel and Mines, in the revision petition filed by the petitioner herein. Even before filing this revision petition before the Government, the petitioner approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 6197 of 1985 for the purpose of quashing the order passed by the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Jamnagar. As per that order, the petitioner herein was directed as follows :'You may, however, sell bauxite not suitable for the plant in the ratio of 1/9th to the bauxite utilised in the plant following the instructions contained in Industries Mines and Power Dept., Circular No. MCB-1083 (222-A) 3034-Chh dated 18-8-1984 (copy enclosed).'At that time, we had directed the petitioner to avail the statutory right pr...
Tag this Judgment!Tribhovandas Bhagwandas Ganjiwada and ors. Vs. Jai Kishan Vallabhbhai ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-18-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC326
D.H. Shukla, J.1. Admit. Service of notice waived by Mr. Akhil Kureshi, for respondent No. 1.2. The appellants are the original opponents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 640 of 1984, which was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot District, Rajkot.3. Respondent No. 1 was the original applicant.4. Respondent No. 1 claimed total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-for the accidental injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 10-6-1984 at about 4-00 p.m. near Amin's Vanda within the city of Rajkot, when he was knocked down from over his motor cycle bearing No. GAP 4554 by the Metador Van bearing No. GAP 8871, being driven by the appellant No. 1, and which was owned by the appellant No. 2 (original opponent No. 2).5. The case of the original claimant was that the accident had taken place on 10-6-1984 at about 4-00 p m. near Amin's Vanda within the city of Rajkot. According to him, he was going to the Mayor's House at Rajk...
Tag this Judgment!Digvijay Cement Company Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC359; 1987(10)LC7(Gujarat); 1986(25)ELT879(Guj); (1987)1GLR641
Majumdar, J.1. In these two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, a short question arises for our consideration. It is as follows : Whether the first petitioner company is entitled to proforma credit under Rule 56-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 framed under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on the two inputs viz. cement and asbestor raw (fibre) which are utilised by petitioner No. 1 company at its Ahmedabad Office for manufacturing finished excisable goods viz. asbestos cement products. 2. Introductory facts : A few relevant facts leading to these petitions and the controversy raised therein deserve to be noted at the outset. Petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No. 2 is a director and shareholder of the said company. Both these petitioners are common to both the petitions. Petitioner No. 1 company owns a factory at Digvijay Nagar gram (Sikka) in Jamnagar district. It is engaged in manufacture...
Tag this Judgment!Madhusinh Bharatsinh Charan Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: (1987)1GLR332
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Both these petitions arise out of one and the same criminal complaint filed against both the petitioners for the offences under Sections 161, 163, 34 and 201 of the I.P. Code. Consequent upon the aforesaid complaint, both the petitioners have been put under suspension by the Respondent Authorities and the order of suspension passed against each of them is challenged by both the petitioners by filing two different petitions. Both the petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Petitioner of Spl. Civil Application No. 1989 of 1986 was serving as Police-constable in Hatkeshwar Police Chowky, Ahmedabad, while petitioner of Spl. Civil Application No. 2040 of 1986 was serving as P.S.I. in the aforesaid police chowky. The order of suspension is challenged on the ground that even if the complaint is read as a whole, no case of misconduct is made out and the conditions set out in the Government Circular dated July 8, 1978 produced at An...
Tag this Judgment!Hiraben and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-07-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Guj225; (1987)1GLR317
Shah, J. 1. The above appeal arises under the following circumstances :Appellants-plaintiffs had filed Special Civil Suit, 114 of 1981, in the court of the Civil Judge (S.D.) Bharuch alleging that they had right, title and interest in S. No. 268/2 admeasuring 1 acre 3 gunthas situated in the sim of village Jadeshwar. It was alleged that out of the said land, 17 gunthas had been acquired for the purpose of the National Highway, near Narmada river near village Jadeshwar. It was further alleged that, the plaintiffs were having only 11 gunthas of land out of the total land of S. No. 268/2 and that, therefore, there was an encroachment by the defendants over the remaining land of the said survey number. The plaintiffs had, therefore, prayed in the said suit for vacant possession of the land so trespassed upon. Alternatively, plaintiffs had claimed Rs. 42,000/- from the defendants, in case a decree for possession of the said land was not passed in favour of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs had als...
Tag this Judgment!Kiritkumar M. Brahmbhatt Vs. Director General of Police and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-07-1986
Reported in: (1987)1GLR325
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The petitioner who is serving as Senior P.S.I. at Anand, District Kheda, challenges the legality and the validity of an order of his transfer from Kheda South to Computer Centre, Gandhinagar. Earlier, by an order dated September 4, 1983 it was directed that the petitioner be transferred from Anand to Gandhinagar District. The petitioner challenged the said order by way of Special Civil Application No. 4284 of 1983. The operation and implementation of the order of transfer was stayed by this Court and that is how the petitioner is still at Anand. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner is serving at Anand for last about four years. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order of transfer, without producing a copy of the order on record. However, the counsel for the respondents has produced a copy of the said order which is dated July 8, 1986.2. It is alleged that the order of transfer is actuated by mala fides. According ...
Tag this Judgment!Narbheram Purshottamdas Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-05-1986
Reported in: 1988CriLJ88
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This is a petition to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 24-12-1985 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Deesa in Criminal Case No. 497/82 acquitting the original accused Nos. 2 and 3 and to pass all other incidental and consequential orders in this regard.It is further prayed in this petition that there must be a declaration to the effect that Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is arbitrary and violative of provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint before the Police on 17-12-1982 to the effect that the nephew of the petitioner Girishkumar was beaten up by the accused when they were returning to their house at 6.00 p.m. It is not necessary for us to give the other details of the complaint. Suffice it to say that the Police under Section 173 filed the charge and ultimately the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Deesa...
Tag this Judgment!Rasiklal Fulchand and Vs. Central Bank and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-04-1986
Reported in: [1989]65CompCas492(Guj); (1987)1GLR291
S.A. Shah, J.1. All these three petitions raise a common question of law as to the interpretation of clause (b)of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Gujarat Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Therefore, at the request of the advocates of the parties, all these petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The respondent-banks in these petitions have filed suits against the petitioners and others for recovery of various amounts. The petitioner who were the defedants in the respective suits raised a contention that a view of the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act, in respect of the suits started after the coming into force of the Act, the civil court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the same in view of the judgment of this court (N. H. Bhatt J.) in Special Civil Application No. 1702 of 1984, decided on October 9, 1985. 3. When Special Civil Application No. 5712 of 1985 came up ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »