Gujarat Court September 1987 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.
Pujaji Dhulaji Thakor Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-1987
Reported in: (1988)1GLR89
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The petitioner is a holder of vacant land situated within the urban agglomeration area of Ahmedabad. The petitioner's application under Section 20 for exemption from operation of certain provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 has been rejected as per order dated August 21 1986 Annexure-B to the petition. The petitioner challenges the legality and validity of this order. The petitioner holds land of Survey No. 458 of village Vejalpur which admeasures 15730 sq. yds. On May 26, 1976 the petitioner applied for exemption in respect of 10,000 sq. yds. of land. It appears that the application was submitted because the petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell the land to New Jalaram Co-operative Housing Society. (This society is petitioner No. 1 in Special Civil Application No. 5597 of 1986. Therein the order passed by the Competent Authority under Section 9 of the Act is challenged inter alia on the ground that no notice as required under Rule ...
New Jalaram Park Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. and anr. Vs. Ramchandra M ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-1987
Reported in: (1988)1GLR82
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Would an agreement to sell vacant land in favour of a party confer any right to be heard by the competent authority? The question arises in the context of Rule 5 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1976.2. The petitioners feel aggrieved by an order dated October 14, 1982 passed by the Competent Authority under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A copy of the order is produced at annexure-A to the petition. Petitioner No. 1 is a Co-operative Housing Society and petitioner No. 2 is a member of the said society. The petitioners contend that an agreement to sell was entered into with the holder of the land by one Jalaram Land Development Corporation on October 16, 1974. The said agreement was with respect to 10000 sq. yds. of land of Survey No. 458 of village Vejalpur, situated within the urban agglomeration area of Ahmedabad. The entire survey number admeasures about 15730 sq. yds. of ...
Vithalbhai Babaldas Patel Vs. Chairman, Oil and Natural Gas Commission ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-1987
Reported in: (1987)2GLR1308
R.C. Mankad, J.1. The petitioners in this group of petitions except the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1305 of 1987, who were employed temporarily for specified period or periods as contingent work-charged unskilled labourers by the Oil and Natural Gas Commission ('Commission' for short), have filed these petitions praying that the Commission be directed to desist from terminating their services on expiry of their period of employment. Petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1305 of 1987 was employed as contingent work-charged labourer for a specified period.2. The petitioners except the petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 227, 282, 383, 1305 and 3549 of 1987 were employed as contingent work-charged unskilled labourers for specified period of 90 days. In other words, each of these petitioners was employed for a period of 90 days. So far as petitioner No. 1 in Special Civil Application No. 227 of 1987 is concerned, his contention is that besides his employment...
Rameshbhai Lallubhai Luni Vs. Devraj Bhalabhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-1987
Reported in: (1988)1GLR109
N.B. Patel, J.1. This reference arises out of Criminal Revision Application No. 99 of 1987 filed by the petitioner praying that the orders, dated 28-2-1987 and 9-3-1987 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mehsana, may be quashed and set aside and the bail granted by the learned Magistrate to the opponents Nos. 1 to 4 may be cancelled and the learned Magistrate may also be directed to grant remand of the opponents Nos. 1 to 4 to police custody. The facts and the circumstances leading to the reference may first be briefly set out. The petitioner is the husband of one Bai Kaliben and is a resident of village Khadalpur in Mehsana taluka of Mehsana district. Bai Kaliben is a relative of the opponent No. 1. It is alleged that, on 18-2-1987 at about 11.30 p.m. the opponents Nos. 1 to 4, accompanied by several other persons, went to village Khadalpur and forcibly abducted the petitioner's wife, Kaliben. Information of this offence was lodged at Laghnej Police Station on or ...
Vadilal Pochabhai Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-1987
Reported in: (1988)2GLR1101
J.P. Desai, J.[His Lordship after stating the facts of the case, further observed:]1. We will first take up the question whether the accused were entitled to the exercise of right of defence of property as contended by the learned Counsel Mr. D,V. Patel for the appellants. We may mention at the outset that no such contention was raised before the trial Court. The accused have also not come out wish a say that they acted in exercise of the right of defence of property. But it is a settled position of law that even if the accused have not comeforth with a say that they were acting in exercise of the right of defence of person or property, that question can be considered by the Court provided that could be borne out from the material on record. It may however be mentioned here that no suggestion was made to any of the witnesses during their cross-examination from which it could even be remotely inferred that the accused were acting in exercise of the right of defence of property. In other...
Harivadan Maneklal Modi and anr. Vs. Chandrasinh Chhatrasinh Parmar an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-18-1987
Reported in: II(1988)ACC254; AIR1988Guj69; (1987)2GLR1274
Ahmadi, J. 1. The short question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the Claims Tribunal was right in holding that since the appellants had received an amount of Rs. 21,600/- by way of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, they were barred by virtue of S .1 10AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 from claiming compensation under the latter Act? The brief facts leading to this appeal may be stated as under.The appellants, who are the original petitioners, are the parents of deceased Bharat Harivadan Modi who died in a vehicular accident which occurred on October 8,1979. A jeep car GRC 97 belonging to Jagdish Electric Company driven by Rajendraprasad Pande ran into a stationary tanker GTB 6022 which was parked partly on the tar road without the tail light switched on. The jeep was proceeding on National Highway No. 8 from Ahmedabad to Bhalod with four passengers including the deceased when the collision in question occurred. In the accident, Bhara...
Jivrajbhai Vrajlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-16-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1160; (1988)1GLR17
P.M. Chauhan, J.1. By this petition under Article 226, Constitution of India, petitioner-detenu JivrajbhaiVrajlalPatel has prayed for a writ of Habeas Corpus and quashing the detention order dt. April 16, 1987 passed against him by the District Magistrate, Surat, the detaining authority, under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and; Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.B. Act') The District Magistrate was subjectively satisfied and, therefore, with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community found it necessary to detain him and, therefore, passed the impugned order of detention.2. The petitioner was served with the grounds of detention of even date. In the grounds of detention it is stated that the detaining authority was informed by a social worker that the petitioner was getting groundnut...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Gujarat State Construction Corporation Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Guj73; (1988)1GLR1
ORDER1. The Petitioner, State of Rajasthan, is aggrieved by the order of the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Narol, dated 12-61987, below Exh. 7, being an application filed by the petitioner to hear the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue, in Misc. Civil Applications No. 25/87, 26/87 and 27/87.2. A few facts may shortly be stated to bring the controversy between the parties in a proper perspective. Brig. D. R. Kathuria was appointed Sole Arbitrator to decide different disputes between the State of Rajasthan and Gujarat State Construction Corporation Ltd., which arose out of three different contracts awarded to the latter by the former. The Chief Engineer, Mahi-Bajaj Sagar Project, Banswara, filed three applications dated 21-3-1987 objecting to the jurisdiction of the court, namely, the Civil Court (S.D.) at Narol, contending that under Cf. 41 of the Special Conditions of Contract, all suits relating to the dispute arising out of the contract are required to be instituted in the...
State of Gujarat Vs. Royal Tailor and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-1987
Reported in: (1987)2GLR1392
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The State of Gujarat has filed the present petition under Article 227 challenging the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari dated 6th October, 1986 in Revision Application Nos. 62, 63 and 64 of 1986. By the said order in the aforesaid revision applications the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 27th May, 1986 of convicting the accused for the alleged breach of the various Rules under the Minimum Wages Rules and sentencing him to pay the fine as mentioned therein, was set aside.2. It is the case of the State Government that the present respondents who were the accused had committed breach of Rules 26, 27 and 26A of the Minimum Wages Rules and, therefore, these three criminal cases were filed against them being Criminal Case Nos. 5005 of 1985, 5006 of 1985 and 5007 of 1986. In all the three cases the learned Magistrate convicted the said opponents and imposed a fine of Rs. 150/- on each of the accused by the order dated ...
Vxl India Limited Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-14-1987
Reported in: (1987)66CTR(Guj)89; [1987]168ITR805(Guj)
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This special civil application is to quash the order dated May 27, 1982, passed by the Income-tax Officer, Jamnagar. In and by the said order, the Income-tax Officer, while granting change in the previous year, as per section 3 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), imposed certain conditions. The condition which is impugned in this petition is condition No. 2(i) set out in the order of the Income-tax Officer and it reads as under : '2. In this connection, I have to inform you that you are allowed to vary the accounting year from financial year ending on March 31, 1983, to the period from April 1, 1982, to June 30, 1983 (i.e., 15 months relevant to the assessment year 1984-85). There will be no assessment for assessment year 1983-84 which will be skipped over. Subsequent accounting year will commence from 1st July and end with 30th June. The above change of accounting year is allowed subject to the conditions noted below : (i) De...