Gujarat Court September 1986 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sairabibi and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-1986
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 ...
Rasul Adam Votra Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-1986
Reported in: (1987)1GLR493
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. In Special Civil Application No. 3378 of 1979 the petitioner has come forward for directing the respondents to rectify the date of birth of the petitioner and other particulars in the service record of the petitioner in conformity with the school leaving certificate at Annexure 'B' of this petition and also for directing the respondents to treat the date of retirement of the petitioner to be March 31, 1994 and enter the said date in the service records of the petitioner maintained by the respondents. The petition further prays for declaring that the provisions of Sub-regulation (2)(with note appended to the said sub-regulation) of Regulation 8 of the Oil & Natural Gas Commission (Terms and Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1975 are unconstitutional, ultra vires and void.2. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 3378 of 1979 joined the service of the 1st respondent-commission as a Road Roller Driver on February 19, 1963. According t...
Arvind Maneklal Bhagat Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-11-1986
Reported in: (1987)2GLR1005
J.P. Desai, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate F.C., Dahod and sentenced to imprisonment and fine. The appeal came to be heard by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra and the appeal came to be dismissed on 30-7-1986. The petitioner was on bail during the pendency of the appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. When the appeal was dismissed, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was expected to direct that the petitioner should surrender to serve out the sentence imposed upon him. Instead of giving such direction, the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed that the petitioner should surrender within a week from the date of that order. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge even thereafter extended time to surrender upto 2-9-1986. Sub-section (3) of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers a Court convicting an accused to release him on bail if the convicted person satisfies that Court that he intends to present an appeal. ...
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-10-1986
Reported in: 1987(11)ECC290; 1987(12)LC773(Gujarat); 1987(27)ELT59(Guj); (1987)1GLR392
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Special Civil Applications questions the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise on the basis of the show cause notice issued on 22.4.1985. The said show cause notice was issued by the Department of Customs Collectorate alleging :- (i) Why the duty of excise at the appropriate leviable rate totally amounting to Rs. 24,92,559.55 (Rs. 33,26,247.19 Basic excise duty + Rs. 1,66,312.36 Special Excise duty) should not be recovered from them on 'Glucose' in liquid form falling under Tariff Item IE, valued at Rs. 2,21,74,981.29 illicitly manufactured and removed by them during the financial years 1982-83 to 1984-85 (upto February 1985) or thereabout as mentioned in para 8 above, under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 read with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (ii) Why penalty should not be imposed on them under sub-rule (1) of rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (iii) Why...
Manibhai Gordhanbhai Patel Vs. Patel Ambalal Prabhudas (Since Deceased ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-10-1986
Reported in: (1987)1GLR557
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated 8-11-1985 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Baroda rejecting the application of the present appellant to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dismissing the suit of the preseal appellant. It is the appellant's case that on 8-11-1985, the plaintiff-appellant could not remain present in the Court at 11-00 A.M. and hence the learned trial Judge passed the ex parte decree on the ground that there was no evidence in support of the appellant-plaintiff's case. However, at 2-00 P.M. on the same day, the appellant-plaintiff gave an application to set aside the ex parte decree and to proceed with the hearing of the suit on merits. The learned Judge rejected the said application.2. Mr. A.J. Patel, Learned Counsel for the appellant states that the learned Judge was not justified in setting aside the ex parte decree although the application was given on the same day soon after the ex parte decree was passed. He has also submi...
Bhutabhai Angadbhai and anr. Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-10-1986
Reported in: (1987)1GLR617
S.A. Shah, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 18-5-1985 passed by the learned Commissioner of Workmen Compensation, Junagadh, in Workmen Compensation Case No. 31 of 1984 filed by the parents (appellants herein) of deceased Anilkumar who died on 1-6-1982 due to the injuries sustained by him on account of electric shock which he received while he was doing the work of painting the electric pole on 30-5-1982 near Dolatpura Sub-Station belonging to the Gujarat Electricity Board (Respondent No. 1)(hereinafter referred to as 'the Board').2. The appellants claimed Rs. 90,000/- as compensation against the Board who is the owner of the said sub-station and electric pole as also against its Executive Engineer (Transmission) at Dhoraji (Respondent No. 2) and one Khakha Hamir, Labour Contractor of the Board (Respondent No. 3). The Commissioner of Workmen Compensation, Junagadh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') by his aforesaid judgment and order awarded an am...
M.R. Bhansali and Co. and anr. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Guj172
Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Special Civil Application is to quash the show cause notices dt. 21-7-1986 which are Annexures 'L' and 'M' to this Special Civil Application. There is a further prayer for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 'to clear the petitioners' consignment covered by the indent Annexures 'G' and 'H' to this petition and against the subsidiary additional licence, the details of which are given in Annexure 'B' to this petition. Apart from these main prayers, the petitioner has asked for temporary relief for the purpose of getting the goods consigned released. Before admission, we issued notice to the respondents and Mr. Qureshi, the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, appeared on behalf of the respondents after taking notice. 2. The short facts of the case that the petitioners, on the strength of the import licence for the purpose of importing crude palm kernel oil and crude palm stearin for industrial purposes, imported those oil. It a...
Gujarat State Machine Tools Corporation Ltd. Vs. Deepak J. Desai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-1986
Reported in: (1987)1GLR387; (1994)IIILLJ848Guj
Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Special Civil Application is for issuing appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the award annexure-A to the Special Civil Application. The respondent raised a dispute to the effect that he shbuld be reinstated in original post with full back wages. According to the respondent, he was treated as a permanent workman, that the served the Company from 12-10-1982 to 11-4-1983, that he has been discharged without following the procedure and that as such he must be reinstated in service with back wages. It was the contention of the appellant before the Labour Court that the workman was employed purely on a temporary basis and mat he has been correctly discharged from service and as such he is not entitled to have the benefit of reinstatement or back wages. The Labour Court, after referring to the Model Standing Orders and also the provisions of Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, came to the conclusion that the respondent must be reinstated in servic...
Widow of Devendra Ratilal Pathak Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-1986
Reported in: (1987)2GLR759
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This matter was taken on file on a letter addressed to the Chief Justice by an Advocate whose name has not been mentioned. He has enclosed a paper cutting. This paper cutting is from a daily 'Sandesh' dated 15-8-1986 which reads as under:Devendra Ratital Pathak, a Police Constable at Bharuch died suddenly at the young age of 46 years in a short sickness on 10-10-83.The plight of the widow of the deceased and her only son has become as if they are 'dead though alive' after the deceased's death. The mother and the son wander like beggars seeking alms to obtain Rs. 20,252/- of the G.P. Fund of the deceased as per the new scheme. Both of them plead for mercy at different places, Bharuch, Surat, Ahmedabad wherever they are told to make an approach, but nobody passes their BNO. 33/86-87 and the widow does not get the money.When the Home Department is unable to get the money paid to its own employee, the Police Constable, what else could the Home Department (be exp...
indumati A. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-04-1986
Reported in: (1987)1GLR389
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The, petitioner is a widow. Her husband, Shri A.N. Patel died on December 29, 1963 while serving as Deputy Secretary to Government, Legal Department. The petitioner being widow of the deceased employee was entitled to family pension, as per the revised Pension Rules, 1950. Thereafter the aforesaid pension rules were amended by Government Resolution dated January 1, 1972. As per the original pension rules family pension was available to the widow and other dependents of an employee only for a period of ten years after the death of the employee. However, by the resolution dated January 1, 1972, the pension benefits were made available till life time of the widow. For being entitled to pension beyond the period of ten years, the widow of the employee was required to contribute two months' salary. But this condition has been later on deleted by a resolution dated October 17, 1977. The aforesaid resolution dated January 1, 1972 has been made applicable to all regular emplo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »