Gujarat Court January 1988 Judgments
Hitesh Bhanuprasad Soni and Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-29-1988
Reported in: [1989]66CompCas744(Guj); (1988)1GLR525(GJ); (1988)1GLR756(GJ)
ORDER OF THE COURT 86. The questions referred to this Bench by the Divisional Bench shall stand answered and the petitions shall stand disposed of as per the majority view. 87. In the result, Special Criminal Application No. 240 of 1987 is rejected and rule issued therein is discharged. Special Criminal Application No. 554 of 1987 is allowed and rule is made absolute. The detenu in the said Special Criminal Application No. 554 of 1987 is ordered to be released forthwith, if not otherwise to be detained in connection with any other case.88. Ordered accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!V.i. Khalifa Vs. Satubha Tanubhai Vaghela
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)1GLR679
D.H. Shukla, J.1. The petitioner, V.I. Khalifa of Surendranagar, has filed the present Special Civil Application, for the issuance of a writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of his dismissal, dated 17-5-1985, and confirmed on 10-3-1986. The copies of the two orders are at Annexures 'A' and 'C to the petition.2. The facts shortly stated are that the petitioner joined as a Peon with the Surendranagar District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Patdi Branch, in the year 1961. Since then he was working as a Peon at Patdi Branch, till 10-6-1985, when he was posted as a Peon at the Limdi Branch of the Bank. The petitioner was a Class IV servant drawing a salary of Rs. 648/-and D.A. with House Rent Allowance etc., per month. On 17-5-1985, the petitioner was served with an order dismissing him from service on the ground that he had intentionally remained on leave without pay for more days than allowable under settlement, which leave without pay was...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottambhai Ramdas Patel Vs. Appellate Officer and District Registr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR1001
P.M. Chauhan, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by respondents Nos. 2 & 1 in proceeding No. S Gram-18-412: 14 on January 31, 1979 and in Appeal No. 31 of 1979 on April 7, 1979 respectively under the provisions of the Gujarat Rural Debtors' Relief Act, 1976, directing the petitioner to hand over possession of the land bearing Survey No. 16 admeasuring 3 Acres of village Dhanshera, taluka Sagbara, Dist. Broach. The respondent No. 3 Suriabhai, claiming to be a marginal debtor under the Gujarat Rural Debtors' Relief Act (to be referred as 'the Act') prayed for possession of the said land.2. The notice was published under the provisions of Section 7 of the Act by the Sagbara Gram Panchayat on January 21, 1978. Subsequently a notice under Section 8(2) of the Act was served by the Debt Settlement Officer to the petitioner as well as to Gomiabhai Govabhai Vasava. Gomiabhai did not remain present before the Debt...
Tag this Judgment!Shivlalbhai Vallabhbhai Vs. the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Ankles ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Guj263; (1988)1GLR329
Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Special Civil application is for issuance of a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ declaring S. 35 as void. ultra vires and infringing upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 19, 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India, and to declare the action under S. 35 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as illegal and violative of the fundamental rights guaranted to the petitioner under the Constitution.2. The short facts of the case for the purpose of disposal of this case are that the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, which was established by an Act of 1959 for the development of petroleum resources and the production and sale of petroleum and petroleum products, has its Regional Offices at Baroda and Ankleshwar. In order to safeguard the project at Ankleshwar and other places, the Government of India, Ministry Of Home Affairs, has sanctioned the creation of temporary posts of 289 Central Industrial Security Force (CISF)...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Amratlal Chimanlal and Etc.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Guj32; (1988)1GLR358
ORDER1. In all these Revision Applications a common issue has been raised that the acquiring body has neither given notice under S. 50(2) of the Act nor any opportunity was given to adduce any evidence in respect of the compensation claim.2. Case of the petitioners is that they came to know about this Award when the Government Pleader, Narol, called upon the acquiring body to deposit the amount that was awarded to the claimants in each case and, therefore, as soon as they came to know about the same, certified copies were obtained and the present Civil Revision Applications have been filed by the petitioners original acquiring body. The lands have been acquired by the Government for the purpose of acquiring body and therefore, the acquiring body has to pay the compensation that has been determined by the trial Court.3. Record of the case was called for and from the record it transpires that no notice has been issued to the petitioners - the acquiring body, nor any opportunity appears t...
Tag this Judgment!Motibhai Ranchhodbhai Patel and anr. Vs. Jethabhai Chhelabhai Heirs of ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR1489
D.H. Shukla, J.1. The petitioners are brothers, being sons of deceased Manekben, who was the only daughter of her father, deceased Shri Jinabhai Bachubhai of Village Ashi, taluka Petlad, district Kaira. Deceased Manekben is stated to be the only heir of her father. After the death of Manekben, the petitioners have become her heirs. Deceased Jinabhai Bachubhai had mortgaged an agricultural field, bearing Survey No. 305 in S. Y. 1906 for Rs. 170/- to Shri Rambhai Ranchhodbhai. After receiving additional amount, a further mortgage deed between the same parties and in regard to the same property was entered into on 25-5-1912 for Rs. 264/-. Both these mortgage transactions were possessory mortgages and accordingly the possession of the suit field was handed over to Chhela Ranchhod and Rama Ranchhod. Both of them have expired, and the respondents as their heirs are in possession of the suit field as mortgagees.2. The petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No. 227 of 1969 in the Court of the Ci...
Tag this Judgment!Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. M.D. Juvekar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-20-1988
Reported in: (1988)1GLR481; (1988)IILLJ534Guj
Ahmadi, J. 1. The first appellant, Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd., also known as Modern Bakeries (India) Ltd., a Government Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at New Delhi and Units spread all over the country including Ahmedabad, has filed this appeal against the order of R. C. Mankad, J. dated October 8, 1987 in Special Civil Application No. 1326 of 1980 (reported in M. D. Juvekar v. Modern Bakeries (India) Ltd. (1988-I-LLJ-433) whereby he set aside the order terminating the services of the respondent and directed his reinstatement in service with effect from April 21, 1980 the date of termination of his service, with full back wages and continuity in service. Appellant No. 2 is the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of appellant No. 1. Appellant No. 3 is the General Manager of appellant No. 1 of the Ahmedabad Unit situate at Naroda Industrial Estate, Ahmedabad. 2. The appellants have raised three contentions in this appeal. They are : (1) ...
Tag this Judgment!Rana Narendrasinhji Jerawarsinhji and ors. Vs. Dipchand Jaterbhai and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Guj226; (1988)2GLR849
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The main question involved in this appeal is whether the appellants-debtors who are partners along with respondents 7, 8 and 9 can be said to have committed any act of insolvency and could be adjudged, insolvenent. 2. The respondents Nos. 1 to 5 being creditors of a partnership firm in the name of M/s. Labhshanker Joravarsinh at Limbdi had filed an Insolvency Petition No. 4 of 1970 alleging that the respondents debtors had committed acts of insolvency and therefore prayed that the six partners be adjudged insolvent.In the insolvency petition it was alleged that the defendants were carrying on business in partnership as commission agents for cotton and cotton pods and ginning and pressing cotton. It is not in dispute that originally, the partnership consisted of only two partners, namely Jorawarsinh Chandrasinh and Acharya Devshanker Jadavji having equal shares. That partnership deed dated 1-6-1964 is at Ex. 216. It also provided that in case of death of any partner, th...
Tag this Judgment!Habib Gulam Rasul Vs. Punjabhai Bhagwanbhai (Decd.) Through His Heirs ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-1988
Reported in: (1988)1GLR519
D.H. Shukla, J.1. The petitioner, Habib Gulam Rasul of village Limodra, taluka Jhagadia, district Broach, was a tenant of a parcel of land bearing Survey No. 32 of village Kunverpara, taluka Jhagadia, district Broach. In the year 1963, one Punjabhai Bhagwanbhai, since deceased, and now represented by Minor Vardhabhai Punjabhai through his guardian Mathurbhai Purshottam, respondent No. 1 herein, having been the owner of aforesaid parcel of land bearing Survey No. 32 (hereinafter referred to as the 'concerned land') obtained possession of the concerned land under Section 32T of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. hereinafter referred to as the 'Tenancy Act', on the ground that he required the land for personal cultivation. The concerned land was thus so recovered by Punjabhai Bhagwanbhai on 31-7-1963 by Order No. 480/Kunverpara, dated 31-7-1963, of the ALT, Jhagadia from the present petitioner who had become a deemed purchaser of the concerned land on 1-4-1957.2. After h...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Swami Amar Jyoti Shyam
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-01-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ501; (1989)1GLR217
ORDERR.A. Mehta, J.1. The State is aggrieved by the orders of both the lower Courts refusing remand of the opponents to the police custody. Hence this petition is invoking Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. The learned Counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that virtually this is a second revision application which is expressly barred under Section 397(3) of the Code, because the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had passed an order refusing remand to police custody and that order was challenged by the State by filing a revision application to the City Sessions Court at Ahmedabad and therefore no further application by the same person (State) can be entertained and is not maintainable. The learned Counsel for the State submitted that what is barred is a second revision application under Section 397 of the Code and a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking constitutional power of the High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›