Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1987Guj147; (1987)1GLR580
Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This matter comes up before us by reference made by the Division Bench consisting of D. H. Shukla and one of us A. P. Ravani, JJ. According to the learned Judges, who referred the matter, the definition of 'dangerous person' contained in S. 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 requires consideration by a larger Bench since the learned Judges, who referred the matter, thought that the pronouncement of Division Benches of our High Court regarding the definition of 'dangerous person' occurring in the Act requires reconsideration. Though it is not necessary for us to go into the facts of the case, which are the subject-matter of Special Criminal Application No. 225 of 1986, for the completion of the record, we may state a few facts :2. The Commissioner of Police, Vadodara City, Vadodara passed a detention order on 28th Oct., 1985 detaining the petitioner by name Ashok Ambu Parmar under the provisions of the Prevention of Anti-Social Acti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1987Guj132; (1988)1GLR95(GJ)
Majmudar, J.1. A short question. has been referred for the decision of the Full Bench. The said question is as to whether this revision application should be placed for final hearing before learned single Judge of this court or whether it should be heard by a Division Bench of this Court.2. In order to appreciate the background giving rise to this question, it is necessary to note a few relevant introductory facts.3. The petitioner is the original accused in criminal case No. 2173 of 1982 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surendranagar. He was charged with the offence under S. 420 read with S. 109, I.P.C. After trial, he was convicted by the learned trial -Judge and was sentenced to undergo R. 1. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo further R. 1. for one year. That order was passed on 9-6-1983. As the said order was appealable under S. 374(3) of the Criminal P.C., 1973 to the court of session, the petitioner preferred an ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1987CriLJ1654; (1987)2GLR979
J. P. Desai, J.1-24. XX XX XX.25. The discussion made above will go to show that the circumstances which are alleged against these two accused do not make out even a prima facie case for drawing an inference against these two opponents-accused that they were party to any such conspiracy as a result of which Jinda could escape. On this material, it can be said, as rightly observed by the learned Judge below, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that these two opponents-accused have not committed any such offence or offences alleged against them.26. Sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Act which is reproduced earlier shows that the provisions of Sub-section (5) can be pressed into service when the person who is sought to be released on bail is accused of an offence punishable under the Act or any rule made thereunder. This shows that if there is an accusation against a person that he has committed an offence punishable under the Act or any rule made thereunder, then the provision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1987)1GLR424
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The teacher concerned in this petition is a retired primary school teacher. He joined the services as a primary school teacher in the erstwhile State of Bhavnagar on April 13, 1933, Thereafter, according to the department he had left the services on March 25, 1945 and was not in service upto June 12, 1947. The teacher concerned, i.e., Jatashanker Hargovind Vyas has retired sometime in the month of February, 1971. Thereafter his papers have been prepared and his services have been reckoned as commencing from June 13, 1947 for the purpose of pension. The teacher concerned contended that his services should be considered for the purpose of pension from April 13, 1933 and the break in service should atleast be condoned for the purpose of pension.2. The teacher concerned had requested that his case be placed before the 'Lok Adalat' which was held at Gadhada in Bhavnagar District. The Lok Adalat was held on February 10, 1985. In Lok Adalat after discussing the case, the Adm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : I(1987)ACC470
I.C. Bhatt, J.1. Before the effective hearing of this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant sought permission to reduce the claim in appeal to Rs. 17,000/- instead of Rs. 27,000/-. The permission is granted. Accordingly, the claim in appeal is restricted to the amount of Rs. 17,000/-. We have also permitted him to amend the claim in this appeal.2. This appeal arises out of Motor Accident Claim Application No. 591 of 1983. This application arose out of an accident which occurred on 11-1-1982 in the sim of village Jamala on Jamala Chhota Udepur Road. There were several claim petitions and all were consolidated and evidence was recorded in claim petition judgment. The truck involved in the accident was GTB 6564. The said truck was coming from Kanawat Mines to Chhota Udepur. The excavated stones from Kanawat Mines were loaded in the truck and the accident occurred in the sim of village Vasedi on Jamala Chhota Udepur Road. It is alleged that Bai Shamali, Bai Hid and Bai Shanta who w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1987Guj234; (1987)1GLR514
ORDER1. These revision applications between the same parties involving the same questions are, with the consent of parties, heard And disposed of together as they involve common questions on similar facts, In all these matters, arising from interim injunctions granted by the Civil Court against the seizure of essential commodity, the State Government original defendant is the petitioner and the opponent is a licensed dealer/producer of the essential commodity namely edible oil. The opponent is running two oil mills: Asha Oil Mill and Ramdevji Oil Mill. There was a search on 1-10-1982 in these Oil Mills resulting into seizure of essential commodities. Civil Suits Nos. 863/1982 and 864/1982 were filed and the ex parte interim orders were obtained on 1-10-1982. Civil Misc. Appeals Nos. 130. /1982 and 131/1982 were preferred before, the District Court against the exparte orders. The District Court, after allowing the parties to complete the pleadings and affidavits, heard the appeals on me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1987Guj230
ORDER1. The petitioners-original defendants have preferred this revision application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act against the judgment and decree for possession of the suit premises. The lower appellate court has confirmed the decree for possession on two grounds, namely(1) change of user i.e. godown to business; and (2) subletting by petitioner No. 1 to petitioner No. 2.The lower courts have held that as per the rent note Ex. 36 dt. 13-3-1956, the suit premises were let as a Vakhar (godown) whereas they are being used for the purpose of business of blacksmith by installing a 'bhathi' and chimney. As regards subletting also, the rent note is relied which is in the name of petitioner No. 1 Jagjivanbhai alias Bhikhabhai Ramji, and petitioner No. 2 Chaturbbai Chhaganlal is proved to be in possession and, therefore, the transfer or subletting is held to have been proved.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners original defendants has submitted that the rent note in the name...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1987)2GLR725
D.H. Shukla, J.1. The Agricultural Inspector, Padra, is the complainant in Criminal Case No. 1679 of 1979, which was heard and disposed of by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karjan, on 27-8-1980. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused No. 1, namely, R.N. Vora, Director, S.M.P. Pvt. Ltd., Bombay, accused No. 2, S.M.P. Pvt. Limited., Bombay and the accused No. 3, Regional Manager, S.M.P. Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad, from the charge under Sections 3(k), 17(1)(a) and 18(1)(c) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. Having been aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said acquittal judgment, the present appeal is preferred by the State of Gujarat.2. The complaint filed by the complainant, Mahendrakumar N. Patel, the Agricultural Inspector, Padra, Baroda, is at Exh. 1 and it discloses the following facts:3. The complainant was working as an Agricultural Inspector, Baroda, and was appointed as such by the State of Gujarat. The complainant holds the requisite qualifications for his post whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1988Guj5; (1987)1GLR473
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act is directed against a decree for possession passed by the lower appellate court on the ground of arrears of rent.2. The trial court had held that there was no proof of service of notice under Sec 12(2) and, therefore, the decree for possession on the ground of years of rent was refused. The lower appellate Court held that the defendant had refused to accept the notice by registered post and, therefore, the notice was deemed to have been served and as the tenant had failed to deposit the arrears of rent exceeding six months. he was liable to be vacated.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner defendant has submitted that this finding regarding deemed service of notice and refusal to accept is perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. The learned Counsel for 'the opponent-plaintiff has submitted that refusal is a question of fact to be decided on appreciation of evidence and there is no case for in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1987CriLJ1732; (1987)2GLR903
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. Is the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Babubhai Parshottamdas v. State, 22 Guj LR 1232 : 1982 Cri LJ 284 impliedly overruled by the decision of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Lakshmi Brahman : 1983CriLJ839 This question was raised before our learned brother M. B. Shah, J. in Kantibhai v. State, 1985 (1) 26 Guj LR 339. He held that the said Full Bench decision stands impliedly overruled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Brahman's case (supra). N. H. Bhatt, J. in Misc. Criminal Application No. 2199 of 1985 decided on 22-11-1985, did not agree with the view taken by M. B. Shah, J. in Kantilal's case (Kantibhai's case) (supra) and held otherwise. Therefore, when Misc. Criminal Application No. 441 of 1986 came up for hearing before our learned brother D. C. Gheewala, J. he thought it fit to refer the matter to a larger bench in view of the conflicting decisions given by M. B. Shah, J. and N. H. Bhatt, J. For the same reason, our learned brother ...
Tag this Judgment!