Gujarat Court March 1988 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.
Dayabhai Premabhai Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-08-1988
Reported in: (1988)1GLR580
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. The petitioner herein has come forward with the present Special Criminal Application for issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing and setting aside the order of externment dt. 30-7-1987 passed against him. By an order dt. 17-10-1987 the said order was confirmed in appeal. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner herein on 30-1-1987 alleging the following activities:2. On 12-7-1985, at about 22-15 hours, at the Malekwadi Navsari Bazar, a crowd of about 100 persons of Hindu and Muslim community had gathered and were exchanging stones and sodawater bottles and in the said incident from the side of Hindu community the petitioner principal person and his associates and some other 50 persons were instigating the residents of the Malekwadi in the name of religion and were further instigating to throw stones and to take part in the incident. The information about the said incident reached the local police in ti...
Bhikhabhai Chhitabhai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-08-1988
Reported in: (1988)1GLR688
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. Mr. Hawa waives service of the role on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned Advocates, all these matters are taken up to-day.2. All these Special Civil Applications are filed for quashing and setting aside the order at Annexure 'A' to the Special Civil Application and also to direct the respondent No. 2 in each of these petition to make a reference to the District Court as prayed for by the petitioners by issuing a suitable writ, direction or order. All these matters pertain to the land acquisition effected by respondent No. 2. After the award was passed, the petitioners in each of these petitions wanted the matter to be referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Court for the purpose of getting enhanced compensation. The respondent No. 2 rejected the application on the ground that the application for reference under Section 18 is time-barred and he has no power to condone the delay in preferring such an appli...
ishabhai Umarbhai Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-07-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Guj223
Gokulakrishnan, C.J. 1. Rule. Mr. Hawa and Mr. Karia waive service of the rule. With the consent of the parties, all these matters are taken up today.2. In all the above petitions, petitioners have come forward with Special Civil Applications, inter alia, praying for a direction to the competent authority to make a reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In all these cases, the prayer for making references under S. 18 was rejected on the ground that the same is barred by limitation.3. As regards the facts in these cases are concerned, there is no dispute that the petitioners were not present at the time the. award was made by the Land Acquisition Officer; that the notice under S. 12(2) was sent without the award annexed thereto; and that the petitioners were not award of the contents of the actual award.4. In view of these admitted facts, we can just refer to S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as follows : -'18. Reference to Court...
Mannsing Babusing Thakore Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-07-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1573; (1988)1GLR648
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The present petition is filed by the detenu against the order of detention passed against him on 13th June, 1987 by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad under Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, on his being satisfied that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make an order directing that the present petitioner should be detained : The said order was executed on the same day and he was also supplied with the grounds of detention Annexure 'C' to the petition on 16th of June, 1987.2. On perusal of the grounds, it appears that there are six cases filed against him under Prohibition Act and there were cases under Sections 66B and 65E. The case No. 628 of 1985 was pending the trial and others were under investigation. Accordingly, the detaining authority was satisfied that the present petitioner was a bootlegger. He also relied on the statements of certain ...
Naranbhai Lallubhai Patel Vs. B.S. Oza and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-07-1988
Reported in: (1988)1GLR646
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. All the Advocates representing the various parties herein are agreeable to dispose of this petition finally.2. In this Special Civil Application, petitioner wants to quash and set aside the Town Planning Scheme No. 2 prepared by respondent No. 1 for the town of Unjha. Various grievances are made, including mala fides, on the part of the authority in preparing such a preliminary scheme. Section 64 of the Act deals with submission of preliminary scheme to the Government. Section 65 of the Act deals with the power of the Government to sanction or refuse to sanction the scheme. As per Section 65(1)(a), the Government, in respect of the preliminary scheme, will take action within a period of two months from the date of its receipt either for sanctioning the same or refusing to sanction or for making such modifications, as in its opinion, necessary. Section 65(2) visualises notification sanctioning the preliminary scheme or the final scheme. Such a notification ha...
Gopalbliai Becharbhai Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-06-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Guj56; (1988)2GLR923
Gokulakrishnan, C.J. 1. Rule. Mr. Hawa waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents.2. This Special Civil Application is filed for quashing and setting aside the order at Annexure 'C' to the Special Civil Application and also to direct the respondent No. 2 in this petition to make a reference to the District Court as prayed for by the petitioner, by issuing a suitable writ, direction or order. This matter pertains to the land acquisition effected by respondent No. 2. In this matter. the award was passed as early as 26-6-198 1. Notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is issued on 18-9-1981 The petitioner actually received copy of the Award on 30-5-1985. Immediately thereafter. the petitioner filed an application before he 2nd respondent. Rejecting him to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Court. This application was filed on 30-07-1985. The 2nd respondent rejected this application as time barred. While rejecting the applic...
HussaIn Haji Harun Alias HusseIn Kabiju Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Guj218; [1989]66CompCas430(Guj); 1995(77)ELT803(Guj)
Shah, J. 1. Rule in Spl. C.A. No. 2515 of W87. Mr. J.' D. Ajmera waives service of the rule. 2. The petitioner in both the petitions is the same. The respondents in both the petitions are mostly common, except that there is one more respondent in Special Civil Application No. 2515 of 1987, who is the Mamlatdar (Recovery), Mandvi (Kutch). As common questions arise in the above petitions, the same are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. To appreciate the controversies between the parties, it is necessary to state a few relevant facts. A notice dt. 18-8-84 was issued to the present petitioner along with 21 others to show cause as to why goods of foreign origin totally valued at Rs. 17,32,000/ should not be confiscated under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The concerned persons were also asked to show cause as to why the vessel MSV PIRANI MNV 192 should not be confiscated under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The persons concerned were also asked to show cause as to w...
State of Gujarat Vs. Krushnmorari Ramkrushna Gupta and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-01-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR965
M.B. Shah, J.1. In these cases it seems that either the learned Magistrate is not aware of the seriousness of the offence, the law laid down by this Court as well as the Supreme Court in various decisions and is not mindful of the fact that under the provisions of law it was his duty to administer the law as per the dictates of the Parliament and to impose minimum sentence provided under the Act. It is high time that the lower Judiciary should realize that it is their duty to follow the law laid down by this Court in various decisions and to implement them.2. From the shop owned by opponent No. 1 known as 'Anil Kirana Stores' at Sevalia of Thasra Taluka, the Food Inspector purchased a sample of turmeric powder in presence of panchas on 1-5-1984 at about 5-30 p.m. The sample was taken from packed tin. Opponent No. 1 produced a bill showing that the said turmeric powder was purchased from opponent No. 4. Opponents Nos. 2, 3 & 5 are the partners of the firm-opponent No. 4. The complaint w...
Rajnikant Uttamram Vankawala Vs. P.K. Bansal, Police Commissioner and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-01-1988
Reported in: (1988)1GLR633
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this petition for a writ of habeas corpus the petitioner who is at present detained in the Baroda Central Jail has brought in challenge the order of his detention dated 22-8-1987 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat city in exercise of his power under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1985 ('PASA' for short). The petition is moved through the younger brother of the detenu. The order of detention is supported by grounds of detention of even date. They were served on the detenu along with the order of detention when he was taken in detention pursuant to the impugned order. The relevant recitals in the grounds of detention show that the detenu was involved in four prohibition cases under Sections 66(b) and 65(e) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and these offences were committed on diverse dates ranging from 13-10-1985 to 12-1-1987. These four criminal cases have been listed in para 1 of the grounds and the last column of the ta...
Thakar Bhanuprasad Kripashanker Vs. Jadav Mahijibhai Desaibhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-01-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR1141
P.M. Chauhan, J.1. Petitioner Thakar Bhanuprasad Kripashanker is occupant of Survey No. 371/14 admeasuring 3 acres 25 gunthas situated at village Nisraya, Taluka Borsad, District Kaira. Admittedly Mahijibhai Desaibhai was the tenant of that land till surrender on March 4, 1955. Tenant Mahijibhai filed Tenancy Case No. 225 of 1973 before the Mamlatdar, Borsad, mainly contending that he continued to be in possession of that land even after 1955 and he continued to be the tenant of the said land. He also contended that even if the petitioner landlord had taken away the possession on termination of the tenancy rights, he is entitled to purchase the land under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act (to be referred as 'BT&AL; Act') as he continued to be in possession of that land. He submitted an application for interim injunction under Section 70 (nb) BT&AL; Act which was granted, but subsequently vacated. In the appeal against that order the Deputy Collector set asid...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›