Gujarat Court March 1987 Judgments
Babubhai Gulambhai Goas Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-30-1987
Reported in: (1987)2GLR814
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner who is a detenu under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 ('the RASA Act' for short), has brought in challenge his order of preventive detention on diverse grounds. The order of detention is dated 31-7-1986. It is at annexure 'A' to the petition. It recites that the detaining authority viz. District Magistrate, Bharuch is satisfied with respect to person known as Babubhai Gulambhai Goas (the petitioner herein) that with a view no preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make an order directing that the said detenu be detained and, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the PAS A Act, the District Magistrate has directed detention of the petitioner. The grounds of detention supporting the detention order are of even date and they are...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal and Panchayat Employees Union and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-27-1987
Reported in: (1987)2GLR936; (1988)ILLJ307Guj
Ahmadi, J.1. The Kalol Nagarpalika was running a single bus transport service. Since it was running in loss an evidenced by the statement filed as Annexure to the affidavit-in-reply, it was decided on 1st September 1986 to close it down. At the relevant point of time when this decision was taken, the staff strength so far as the transport undertaking was concerned was 15 employees. The Nagarpalika, therefore, served these employees with notice dated 14th October 1986 whereunder their services would stand terminated with effect from 17th November 1986. To put it differently, the Nagarpalika gave one month's notice to the employees of the transport undertaking proposed to be closed and terminated their employment. The Municipal & Panchayat Employees' Union reacted by serving the Nagarpalika with a notice dated 21st October 1986 under Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter called 'the Act') to proceed on strike. Along with the notice a statement of reasons for the d...
Tag this Judgment!Karnalsingh Gill and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-25-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ100
ORDERI.C. Bhatt, J.1. This Application has been filed by the petitioners for dismissing the complaint on the ground that there is no sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal P.C. The petitioners were the public servants as defined in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 and therefore, no prosecution can be initiated against the petitioners without the sanction of the Government of Rajasthan.2. The case of the prosecution is that petitioners 1 and 2 are working as Sales Tax Officers in the Anti-Evasion Branch in the Sales Tax Department of State of Rajasthan. It was alleged that there was large-scale evasion of Sales Tax at the Mukhampura Checkpost situate near Sachor, in Rajasthan, on Sachor-Tnarad Road and that the checkpost staff had joined hands with the transporters and merchants of Rajasthan and the trucks were entering in Gujarat State illegally from the aforesaid checkpost. By communication dt. 19-11-1982 of the Commercial Tax Department, the petitioners were given instructions t...
Tag this Judgment!Salemamad Suleman Gadh Vs. Home Ministry (Deputy Secretary)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-25-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1352; (1987)2GLR1059
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner who is detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ('the COFEPOSA Act') has challenged the order of the preventive detention on diverse grounds.2. The order of detention is dated 26-5-1986. That order is supported by grounds of detention (annexure 'B').They are of even date. They were supplied to the detenu along with the order of detention when he was taken in custody. Actual date of his detention is 26-5-1986. This detention order has been followed by a declaration under Section 9(1) of COFEPOSA Act issued by Mr. M.L. Wadhawan, Additional Secretary to the Govt. of India in exercise of his powers under Section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. A copy of the said declaration is at annexure 'D' to the petition. Its Gujarati version is on the next page of the petition.3. This petition was admitted to final hearing on 29-12-1986 by a D...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Karanalsingh Gill and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-25-1987
Reported in: (1987)2GLR853
I.C. Bhatt, J.1. This Application has been filed by the petitioners for dismissing the complaint on the ground that there is no sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners were the public servants as defined in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 and therefore, no prosecution can be initiated against the petitioners without the sanction of the Government of Rajasthan.2. The case of the prosecution is that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are working as Sales Tax Officers in the Anti-Evasion Branch in the Sales Tax Department of State of Rajasthan, It was alleged that there was large-scale evasion of sales-tax at the Maukhampura Checkpost situate near Sachor, in Rajasthan, on Sachor-Tharad Road and that the checkpost staff had joined hands with the transporters and merchants of Rajasthan and the trucks were entering in Gujarat State illegally from the aforesaid checkpost. By communication dated 19-11-1982 of the Commercial Tax Department, the petitioners were give...
Tag this Judgment!Mehta Vijay Rasiklal Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-19-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Guj191; (1987)2GLR748
ORDER1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner who is aspiring to become an engineer has made a grievance regarding his non-admission to electronic engineering course at the fourth respondent institution.2. A few relevant facts leading to the present petition are required to be noted at the outset to highlight the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner appeared in the higher secondary certificate examination conducted by the Gujarat Secondary Education Board in April, 1986. The petitioner obtained 529 out of 800 marks in the theory papers as well as in practicals. The petitioner secured 80.8% in science subjects (theory). It was his first trial. He stood at Sl. No. 88 out of total number of 25000 students who appeared in science stream in the aforesaid examination. So far as his marks in practical examination were concerned, in physics, he got 26 out of 50 marks; in chemistry he got 24 out of 50 marks and in biology, he got 22 out of 50 marks. Thus, ou...
Tag this Judgment!Cowasjee Nusserwanji Dinshaw Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-1987
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Guj)91; [1987]165ITR702(Guj)
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. Rule Mr. R. P. Bhatt waives service of rule. By consent, to be heard to-day. 2. The petitioner, an assessee to income-tax and wealth-tax, challenges the retention of certain documents and books of accounts seized under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), by the concerned authorities. The officers of the Income-tax Department raided the premises of the company as well as the residential premises of the petitioner on November 13, 1984, and December 27, 1984, and seized certain documents during the course of the raid in exercise of power under sub-section (1) of section 132 of the Act. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer from Ward-B, Bhuj, passed an order under sub-section (5) of section 132 on March 4, 1985, exhibit 'B' to the petition. The documents, account books, etc., are in the possession of the Income-tax Authorities since the date of their seizure on the aforesaid dates. 3. The grievance made by the learned advocate for the p...
Tag this Judgment!Amritbhai Ghelabhai Patel and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ648; (1987)2GLR826
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the present three petitioners who are convicts undergoing sentences of imprisonment in the Ahmedabad Central prison, have made a grievance that the periods spent by them for industrial training between 21-10-1984 and 18-5-1985 is not being counted by the respondents jail authorities, towards remission of sentence. The petitioners' case is that in the year 1984, the jail authorities had decided to start a new industry section of steel furniture in the central prison at Ahmedabad. They decided to send some prisoners for training outside the jail. The Jail superintendent had thereafter called some 65 to 70 prisoners to find out their consent. All these prisoners were ready to undergo the training. Therefore, the jail authorities had asked for police opinion in cases of all the said prisoners. During this period, the jail authorities had consulted Gujarat Khadi Gramodyog Mundal having its office opposite Gandhi Ash...
Tag this Judgment!Kantilal Chandulal Shah Vs. C.J. Jose and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-05-1987
Reported in: [1988]64CompCas445(Guj); (1987)1GLR602
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this petition under article 226 of the constitution,m the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated October 14/15, 1986, passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Gujarat, respondent No.1 herein, whereby he confirmed the order dated September 19,1986, passed by the second respondent, District Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The impugned orders are at annexures A and B to the petition. By the original order at annexure 'A' which is confirmed by the first respondent, the petitioner has been disqualified to hold any elected pst for a period of four years either on the managing committee of Navdeep Co-operative Bank Ltd., Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, or on the managing committee of any other co-operative society. The said order has been passed by the second respondent under section 76B(2) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short). The said order has been challenged on diverse grounds, but it is not necessary to me...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›