Gujarat Court April 1987 Judgments
Haresh K. Jani and ors. Vs. Sarabhai Ramanbhai Shah and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-28-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Guj215; (1987)2GLR870
ORDER1. These applications are filed by some advocates, Bar Associations, the Bar Council of India, and the Bar Council of Gujarat. They want to intervene and be impleaded as parties-respondents in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 2729 of 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the main application'). The main application is directed against Kersup Jehanbux Shethna, the respondent therein, who is the President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates' Association, and Chairman of the Special Action Committee, and is for moving this Court to take suo motu action against the respondent therein under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') for having committed various acts referred to in the main application. There is a further prayer to the effect that the respondent therein and the Special Action Committee, as well as the Gurarat High Court Advocates' Association, should be restrained from boycotting work of Courts etc., in the entire State. Pending the admissio...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Electricity Board and anr. Vs. Patan Nagarpalika and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-27-1987
Reported in: (1987)2GLR858
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. The petitioners in the above Special Civil Applications want to quash and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, dated 21-6-1983 and to direct the Appellate Authority appointed under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, who is the Respondent No. 4 in these petitions to entertain the appeals filed by the petitioners after condoning the delay in filing the said appeal.2. The Gujarat Electricity Board, on an application made by the Patan Nagarpalika, revoked the electric licence under Section 42 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. In terms of the said revocation order, the Patan Nagarpalika at Patan handed over the distribution of the electrical undertaking to the petitioners on 30th June, 1981. As per Section 7 of the Indian Electricity Act, the undertaking of the 1st Respondent vested with the Board free from any debt, mortgage of similar obligation of the said licence. It is the case of the Board th...
Tag this Judgment!J.V. Puwar and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-1987
Reported in: (1987)2GLR956; (1988)ILLJ311Guj
R.A. Mehta, J.1. These three police officers of different ranks have challenged their orders of suspension. Since they arise out of same common incident, they were argued and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioner J.V. Puwar (Speial Civil Application No. 292 of 1987) was the Dy. Superintendent of Police (Sub-Divisional Police Officer), the petitioner B.C. Joshi (Special Civil Application No. 451 of 1987) was Police Sub-Inspector and petitioner B.J. Parmar (Special Civil Application No. 551 of 1987) was Police Inspector at Rajpipla. There was an incident in which it is alleged that some police constables committed a rape on a tribal woman and there was serious lapse in recording and investigating the complaint and ultimately under the orders of the Supreme Court, investigation had to be entrusted to C.B.I. The Supreme Court had also appointed a Commission to inquire into and report about the incident and the investigation and that Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-22-1987
Reported in: (1988)70CTR(Guj)14; [1987]168ITR231(Guj)
D.H. Shukla, J.1. The petitioner, Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd., Ranavam, District Porbandar, filed this special civil application for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or any other writ, direction or order under article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of the respondent, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Circle, Ahmedabad, dated September 4, 1986 and to condone the delay and to direct the respondents to dispose of the concerned revision petition on merits and also to direct him to dispose of the revision petitions for the assessment year 1965-66 pending with him since December 26, 1972. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the present special civil application may shortly be termed as under : The petitioner entered into an agreement with the Gujarat Electricity Board on September 23, 1959, for additional supply of electricity for working a plant on condition that the petitioner contributed towards the cost of layi...
Tag this Judgment!The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manguben and a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Guj224; [1990]68CompCas661(Guj); (1987)2GLR953
Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant National Insurance Company Limited is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Spl. Civil Appln. No. 4589 of 1985. Respondent No. 1 herein straightway moved the learned single Judge under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the appellant insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to respondent No. 1 payable under the personal accident policy of her husband. The learned single Judge allowed the said petition and directed such payment claimed by respondent No. 1 subject to certain conditions regarding obtaining a declaration, from the competent Court that she is a guardian of the property of the two minors and also the direction from the said Court to deal with 2/3rd share of the amount that is payable to the said minors. The learned Advocate General appearing for the appellant insurance company po...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Hamidkhan Pathan and Etc. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-1987
Reported in: 1989CriLJ468; (1987)2GLR942
ORDERM.B. Shah, J.1. The Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 17, Ahmedabad, by the order 12th Jan., 1987 has framed charge against the petitioner (original accused No. 4) and opponents Nos. 3 to 5 for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) and Section 25 read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 120B of the I.P.C. In the alternative he has framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Act. Further, in the alternative accused Nos. 2 and 4 are charged for the offences punishable under Section 25 of the Act.2. The petitioner original accused No. 4 has filed this Miscellaneous Criminal Application for quashing and setting aside the charge framed against him and also for releasing him on bail. It is his contention that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 202 of examining all witnesses of the complainant before issuing process and, therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Ambashanker Gaurishanker Pandya and anr. Vs. D.G. Valavadia and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-1987
Reported in: (1982)2GLR441
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. A short question arises for consideration of this Court in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It centers round the consideration of the provisions of Section 63(2) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1962, hereinafter referred to as the 'Panchayat Act'.2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners voiced in the present petition, a few relevant facts may be stated.3. One Mahasukhbhai Bhatt was elected as President of Talaja Taluka Panchayat somewhere in January 1981 and his term as President was for a period of 5 years. Thus he could have gone on acting as President of the Talaja Taluka Panchayat upto the beginning of 1986. But unfortunately for him he was involved in a criminal case and, therefore, he was suspended from the office of the President of the Talaja Taluka Panchayat during the pendency of the criminal case in accordance with the provisions of Section 63(1) of the Panchayat Act. Moment he got suspended the procedu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Harikishan Jethalal Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-1987
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(Guj)54; [1987]168ITR472(Guj)
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The assessee is a member of a Hindu undivided family. The said Hindu undivided family had received agricultural land on partial partition of the bigger-Hindu undivided family some time in October, 1955 (S. Y. 2011). Expect for carrying out certain agricultural operations, this land was not put to any other use. It is the case of the assessee that on February 8, 1975, this land was converted into stock-in-trade in the books of the assessee and the said stock-in-trade was transferred on the very same day as contribution of the Hindu undivided family in the partnership firm of Messrs. H. J. Traders wherein the Hindu undivided family had 28 paise in a rupee as share in the profit and loss of the said partnership firm. The value of the transferred land was taken as Rs. 1,99,045 was against its original cost of Rs. 17,817. The sum of Rs. 1,99,045 was credited to the account of the Hindu undivided family in the partnership firm as contribution towards capital. 2. The assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Govindbhai Somabhai Nai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-03-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Guj273; (1987)2GLR760
ORDER1. The petitioners challenge the order of Secretary (Appeals), Government of Gujarat, dated 29th August 1983 whereby he cancelled the order of the Taluka Development Officer dated 19/20th April 1982 granting permission to the owners/occupants of certain lands situate in Kalol Taluka of Mehsana District for making non-agricultural use of the said lands. The facts leading to this group of petitions, briefly stated, are as under.2. The lands which are the subject matter of these petitions were admittedly agricultural in character. The owners/occupants of the said lands preferred applications dated 13/14th April 1982 under S. 65, Bombay Land Revenue Code ('the Code' for short) for permission to make non-agricultural use of their lands to the Taluka Panchayat. The Taluka Development Officer, Kalol, granted the permission by his order dated 19/20th April 1982. On the Secretary (Appeals), Government of Gujarat, coming to know about the same, he issued show cause notices dated 31st March ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanbhai Navinbhai Kukana Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-02-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ982
M.B. Shah, J.[1 to 7 x x x x x x x x]8. The learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that even assuming that the accused had given a push from the bridge, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code because the case of the accused would not fall within the provisions of Section 300 of the Penal Code. He submitted that in this case the evidence on record shows that there was; no intention on the part of the accused to! cause death of the deceased and, therefore, it would not fall within the first part of Section 300. It is his say that the accused and deceased were quarrelling for a petty amount of Rs. 5/- which was given by the Contractor for taking tea to all the labourers.9. In this case as the death of one person has been caused by the act of the accused, hence the question which is required to be considered is whether the act of the accused falls within the definition of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' or ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›