Gujarat Court April 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.
Gorumiya Noormiya Shaikh Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR1135
D.C. Desai, J.1. The petitioner who has been detained by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City, by an order dated 19-8-1987 under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') has challenged the said order of detention on various grounds.2. The order of detention is at Annexure 'A', page 17 of the compilation, while the grounds of detention are at Annexure 'C' at pages 19 to 24. The grounds of detention show that the petitioner was involved in a number of prohibition cases under the Bombay Prohibition Act, the first offence enumerated therein being dated 22-9-1985, while the last being dated 25-7-1987. The grounds of detention show that on account of the anti-social activities of the petitioner enumerated in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority was satisfied that the petitioner was required to be detained and accordingly, an order of detention has been passed. The grounds of detentio...
Testeels Ltd. Vs. Radhaben Ranchhodlal Charitable Trust
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-1988
Reported in: [1989]66CompCas555(Guj); (1989)2GLR1158
R.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J. 1. Both those O. J. Appeals arise from the order passed in Company Petitions Nos. 43 of 1986 and 46 of 1986. Both the company petitions were filed by different charitable trusts against the same appellant herein for the purpose of winding up the appellant-company due to its inability to pay the huge rents payable to the respondents. The learned company judge admitted the company petitions and passed the following order on April 29, 1987: 'Admit. For the present, at the request of Mr. S. I. Nanavati, the matter is adjourned till reopening of the court for the purpose of advertisement. S.O. to June 25, 1987.' 2. A similar order was passed in both the company petitions and as against these orders, the present O.J. Appeals Nos. 9 of 1988 and 10 of 1988 have been filed. In the O.J. appeals, the appellant, Testeels Limited, apart from various other grounds contended that in view of the provisions under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions)...
Kanubhal Babubhai Patel Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR976
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Does the Supreme Court say that at the time of promotion of an employee is lacking in qualification regarding experience for requisite years, his promotion to the higher post should be regularized, if while serving on the higher post he acquires the experience required for fulfilling the eligibility criterion? How a decision of the Supreme Court is to be read and understood? Are the observations made by the Supreme Court to be applied generally in all cases or are they required to be restricted to the context in which they are made? These are some of the questions which arise in this petition in the background of the facts that follow.2. The petitioner challenges the order of his reversion from the post of meter tester to the post of helper. In response to the advertisement for the post of meter tester the petitioner applied for the same. On the date of interview the petitioner was not possessing the requisite qualifications for the post of meter tester. The requisite...
Bhikhabhai Kalyanbhai Vs. Pirabhai Vaghabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR1282
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. The appellant herein was the defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 62 of 1984. The said suit was for granting mandatory injunction requiring the appellant herein to remove the construction he has put in before filing of the suit and for perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from putting any further construction and also restraining the appellant from obstructing the respondent herein from putting construction on the suit plan.2. It is the case of the respondent herein that the plot on which the appellant has put in construction was allotted to him by the Taluka Development Officer, Dhandhuka and that inspite of that the appellant herein had. constructed a wall in that plot. By application Exh. 5 in that said suit the respondent herein applied for temporary injunction restraining the appellant herein from putting any construction and also restraining him from obstructing the respondent herein in putting construction over the suit plot. On that Exh. 5, ...
Jamnadas Hiralal Mendha Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR1288
A.P. Ravani, J.1. At the request and with the consent of the parties all these revision applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. Except C.R.A. No. 1219 of 1987 rest of the nine revision applications together with C.R.A. No. 1303 of 1987 arise out of a common judgment delivered by the learned Assistant Judge, Surendranagar. C.R.A. No. 1303 of 1987 appears to have been left out by inadvertance. Therefore it is not being disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioners are holding authorisation as dealers of fair price shops. They entered into contract with the Collector, Surendranagar for running fair price shops for the purposes of distribution of food-grains, pamolive oil, sugar and such other essential articles of human consumption. The officers of the respondent-State Government visited the shops of the petitioners and found that the petitioners had committed irregularities in respect of running of the fair price shops. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Motilal C. Patel and Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-1988
Reported in: [1988]173ITR666(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short), has referred to us for our opinion the following questions under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : ' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 66,066 received by the assessee-firm during the S. Y. 2027 (previous year relevant to assessment year 1972-73) is includible in the assessment for the assessment year 1973-74 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the conclusion of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the receipt of Rs. 66,066 became taxable as business income of the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1972-73 and that the said amount was not again includible in the assessee's total income for the assessment year 1973-74, in question is correct in law and sustainable from the material on record ?' 2. The assessment year under reference is 1973-74, the previous year being S. Y. 2028 which commenced on October 20, 1971, and en...
A.N. Trivedi and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR1123
P.M. Chauhan, J.1. Petitioners, the directly recruited District Inspectors Land Records (hereinafter referred to as 'DILRs') have moved this Court by Special Civil Application under Article 226 Constitution of India for appropriate writ and for quashing and setting aside the provisional seniority list of DILRs issued by the Government vide Circular No. SNR 1177/62295-H, dated 24th August, 1978 and final seniority list of direct recruits and promotee DILRs issued by the Government vide G.R. No. SNR-1177/62295-H, dated June 5, 1979 for the period from May 1, 1960 to December 31, 1972 (Annexure ('A' & 'D') and also for quashing the orders in the cadre of DILRs and SLRs made in case of promotees with effect from the formation of the Gujarat State till the date of petition, contending that the said gradation list and the orders passed by the respondents Nos. 1 & 2 are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is otherwise illegal and invalid. The petitioners also seek...
T.K. Rabari Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR875; (1989)ILLJ98Guj
1. Can existence of escape route such as emergency exit door or safety valve ever be pleaded as a ground for using the escape route as a State Highway or National Highway This in short is the question which arises in this petition. In spite of the fact that there is alternative remedy by way of appeal, the petitioner insists that this High Court should exercise its power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner was serving as a Field Assistant with respondent No. 2-Corporation. He has been ordered to be removed from service by order dated December 15, 1986 produced at Annexure-L to petitioner. It was alleged that in past when the petitioner was at Chuda Sheep Extension Centre he was served with show-cause notice to explain as to why his services should not be terminated on account of frequent absence and irregularities. The petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard and ultimately as per order referred to hereinabove his services have been terminated. This...
D.R. Sanghvi and Co. Vs. Virat Apartment Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-1988
Reported in: (1989)2GLR1137
P.R Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. All these appeals are filed by different parties, who are aggrieved by the orders passed in Company Petition No. 137 of 1985 on 18th February, 1988 and 2nd March, 1988. With the consent of the parties, they are fully board and disposed of finally. All appeals are admitted and respective Counsel waives service for his respective client in all the appeals.2. The facts of the case, to appreciate the contentions of the respective parties, are as follows:One Swashraya Benefit Private Limited, came into liquidation. In the winding up proceeding, its property, namely, northern wing of the building, known as 'Virat Apartment', situated in Diwali Baug, Athwa Lines, Surat, was sought to be sold. The Official Liquidator, as per the direction of the Court, inserted advertisements in various newspapers, calling for offers to purchase this Virat Apartment. Pursuant to the said advertisements, the appellants made their offers in writing to purchase the said property. Even t...
Dharoi Jalashya Matsya Udyog Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs. Gujrat Kendriya ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-05-1988
Reported in: [1991]70CompCas823(Guj)
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Here, there is a dispute between different co- operative bodies as to the meaning of the term ' dispute '. Instead of co-operation, there is dispute as regards their business. Even so, in a genuine spirit of co-operation, they have assisted the court (through their counsel) in giving the correct meaning to the expression ' dispute ' occurring in section 96 of the Gujrat Co-operative Society Act, 1961. While disposing of the case, may I ask, will they not resolve their dispute in a genuine spirit of co-operation instead of dragging their feet to court every now and then ?2. Now, let the question be examined.3. The petitioners are original-defendants who succeeded before the trial court in resisting the application, exhibit 5, for an injunction restraining them from catching fish from Dharoi Reservoir. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit and prayed that the aforesaid petitioners be restrained from catching fish from Dhroi Reservoir. Considering the pleadings, the rele...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »