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.
H.S. Laskari Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-14-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Guj101; 1995(76)ELT258(Guj); (1988)1GLR45
ORDER1. The present application is filed by the Superintendent of Customs, Junagadh, against the order dated 5-6-87 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh, which is annexed to the application as Annexure-C. In the said order a sum of Rs. 2,100/- wag ordered to be paid to Shri J. A. Dholakia and Shri L N. GaJra, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Junaxadh each by way of remuneration f -or the work done by them under Sec. 110(1B) of the Customs Act, and the Customs and Central Excise Department, Junagadh was ordered to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,200/- in the court within 15 days from the date of the said order. 2. In view of the fact that the order was passed in favour of the learned Judicial Magistrates, First Class, Shri J. A. Dholakia and Shri J. N. Gajra, they were ordered to be joined as -party-respondents and accordingly they were joined as respondents Nos. 2 & 3. They have not filed any appearance and they have stated that they will submit to the orders of this Court...
Harijan Boot House Vs. Registrar of Firms
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-11-1987
Reported in: (1988)1GLR11; [1988]171ITR549(Guj)
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Should the application for recording of changes in the constitution of a firm be submitted within a specified time-limit and should the same be submitted in person and not by post The aforesaid question has arisen in the context of the facts narrated hereinbelow. 2. The petitioner-firm started its business some time in the year 1946. The firm got itself registered with the Registrar of Firms on March 10, 1955. Thereafter, a partner, Balvantbhai Dahyabhai Modi, died on May 5, 1976. Thus, there was a change in the constitution of the firm. But the same was not recorded in the register of firms by the Registrar of Firms. Again, another partner, Narshibhai Chandulal Nanavati, retired from the firm on June 27, 1986. This change in the constitution of the firm was also not got recorded with the Registrar of Firms. However, the registration of the firm as originally recorded on March 10, 1955, continued. 3. The petitioner-firm submitted an application in June, 1986, by regis...
Dhiran Harilal Garasia Vs. N. Mansu
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-10-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Guj159; (1987)2GLR1321
1. The appellant filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 81 of 1984 against the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights under S. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The opponent wife filed her written statement therein denying the allegations made in the petition. The learned trial Judge held that the petitioner husband was unable to establish that the opponent-wife had, without reasonable cause, withdrawn from his society. The learned trial Judge accordingly rejected the petition. Being dissatisfied with the same, the present appeal has been filed before this Court by the original petitioner.2. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court, many efforts were made to see that there was reconciliation between the petitioner and the opponent so that they may reside happily along with their two children, a son and a daughter respectively begotten by the wedlock, but it appeared that it was not possible for the petitioner and the opponent to reside together. The petitioner has filed...
Vithalbhai Nagarbhai Patel and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-09-1987
Reported in: (1989)1GLR262
R.A. Mehta, J.1. All the three appellants accused have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. They are also convicted for offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. They are also convicted for offence punishable under Section 341 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven days. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case is that the deceased Dahyabhai Bavabhai and his brother Manibhai Bavabhai (injured witness, P.W. 2) were going towards Atic Company. The prosecution case is that in Atic Company, there was a long standing labour dispute and there was a strike and lock out for a long time. Ultimately, there was some settlement with the Management, and as a result thereof some workmen had started attending the factory. However, the other Union which was not ...
Markland Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Guj44; (1988)1GLR197
1. Obtain by 'proper management' or otherwise, an unlawful and erroneous order permitting to transfer land in favour of non-agriculturist. See that the same is not challenged by vendor of the land. The phrase 'proper management' conveys every thing dot commonsense should dictate, having regard to the realities of life. In this fashion can any one frustrate the objects of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948? Or is it open to the State Government to challenge such orders in revision', notwithstanding the fact that the Government is not a party in the proceedings before lower authority? These are few of the questions involved in these petitions, besides other common questions of law and facts. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the cases, at the request of and by consent of the parties all these petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The petitions are under Art. 277 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner No. 1, a private limited company, and...
Dahyabhai Manorbhai Patel Vs. the Competent Authority and Additional C ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Guj52; (1987)2GLR1396
ORDER1. Mr. M.I. Hava waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. At the request and by consent of the parties, the matter is ordered to be heard today.2. The petitioner holds vacant land in Urban Agglomeration area of Vadodara. Against the order passed by the Competent Authority declaring that the petitioner holds certain area of land-in excess of the ceiling limit, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and hence an application for condonation of delay was also filed. The Appellate Tribunal has rejected the appeal on the ground that appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. It is also held that the appeal was f filed after the publication of Notification under S. 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable.3. As far as the condonation of delay is concerned, the facts may be ex...
In Re: Divya Vasundhara Financiers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-07-1987
Reported in: (1988)2GLR1045
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. The present three applicants have taken out this Judge's summons praying for an order that healing of Case No. 374 of 1982 filed in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Bombay be stayed. The application is filed against opponent No. 1 who is the original complainant in the said criminal case and also against opponent No. 2 which is the Court Committee appointed by this Court in the case of Divya Vasundhara Financiers Private Limited, Ahmedabad.2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the applicants, it is necessary to note a few introductory facts leading to the present application. Opponent No. 2-Divya Vasundhara Financiers Private Limited which is a private limited company was floated with fixed capital of Rs. 1 lac divided into 1000 ordinary shares of Rs. 100/- each. Its object was to promote a scheme of chit fund and savings, amongst others. It appears that the Company had accepted deposits from the public u...
Reserve Bank of India, Bombay Vs. Harisidh Co-operative Bank Ltd. and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-04-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Guj107; [1990]69CompCas260(Guj); (1987)2GLR1289
Nanavati, J.1. Opponent No. I is a Cooperative Bank. Opponents Nos. 2 and 3 are the Joint Managing Director and Director respectively of that Bank. Opponent No. I Bank is an insured Co-operative Bank, and there is no dispute that S. 115A of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is applicable to it. The Reserve Bank of India, the applicant herein, by an order dt. 23-7-1987 passed in exercise of the powers conferred on it by S. 115A(3) of the Act, directed the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies (City) Ahmedabad to supersede the Board of Directors of the opponent No. 1 Bank and to appoint an Administrator to take charge and run the affairs of the Bank for an initial period of two years. The Reserve Bank gave this direction because it was satisfied that the affairs of the opponent No. 1 Bank were being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the depositors and for securing the proper management of the Bank, it was necessary...
Hamidulla Bismillakhan Navab and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-03-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ981
J.P. Desai, J.[ 1 to 15 x x x x x x x x x ]16. Before parting with this judgment, we are constrained to observe here that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge committed an error in bringing on record in the evidence of P. S. I. Sajjansinh Parmar P. W. 19 Exh. 71 what came to the knowledge of the said officer during the investigation of other Sessions case. In the evidence of said P, S. I., it is stated at para 3 as follows:---(Matter in vernacular omitted- Ed.)17. P. S.I. should not have (been) permitted to state in the evidence recorded in Sessions Case No. 6/86 what came to his knowledge during the course of the investigation of other case. The learned Judge fell in error in allowing this to be brought on record of this case. 18. It is also stated by P.S.I. Sajjansinh Parmar at para 4 as follows:(Matter in vernacular omitted - Ed.)19. This is also not permissible. Any part of a statement of a witness before the Investigating Officer can be brought on record only by way of contradiction a...
Gujarat Majdoor Panchayat Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-03-1987
Reported in: (1988)2GLR1005
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The petitioner is a trade Union. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the legality and validity of the order passed by the respondent-police Commissioner refusing to grant permission to the workers for installing 'mandap' at the Reliance gate and permitting 200 to 250 workmen to sit there. By Annexure 'A' the General Secretary of the petitioner-Union requested the respondent-Police Commissioner to grant permission as stated above. By order dated August 21, 1987 the respondent-commissioner of Police, City of Ahmedabad, has refused permission on the ground that it was not proper to grant permission in the public interest from the point of view of law and order.2. As per the relevant Rules and Regulations framed under Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act ('the Regulations and Conduct of Assembly and Procession (Ahmedabad Police Commissioner Area) Rules, 1975') the authorised officer can certainly refuse to grant permission sought for. But the permission can ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »