Gujarat Court September 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.
Chhotalal Girdharlal Gheewala Vs. District Panchayat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-13-1988
Reported in: (1989)1GLR376
M.B. Shah, J.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and decree dated 12th August, 1988 passed by the Assistant Judge, Surat in Regular Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1984 the petitioner-original tenant has filed this revision application. The learned Judge has allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial Court for being tried in accordance with law.2. It is the contention of the petitioner who is a tenant of the premises belonging to the respondent-District Panchayat, Surat, that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the 'Bombay Rent Act', under Section 4(4)(a) and that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit.3. In my view, this contention is rightly appreciated by the learned Judge by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanji Manji v. Trustees of the Port of Bombay : AIR1963SC468 . In that case the Trustees ...
Mody Mansukhram Punjiram (Decd.) Through His Lrs. and Heir and anr. Vs ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-13-1988
Reported in: (1989)1GLR476
M.B. Shah, J.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 16th August, 1988 passed by the Extra Assistant Judge, Mehsana in Regular Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1988, the petitioner who is the heir of the deceased tenant has filed this revision application.2. This proceeding arises out of the execution application filed by the opponent No. 1 original landlord for executing the decree dated 19th December, 1968 in Regular Civil Suit No. 226 of 1966. That decree is a consent decree wherein the tenant has agreed to hand over possession of the suit shop on or before 1-1-1983. He has also agreed to pay the mesne profits till 1-1-1983. It has been further decreed that up to 1-1-1983 the plaintiff landlord was not entitled to construct first floor on the suit premises. On 1-1-1983 when the tenant failed to hand over possession of the suit shop, opponent No. 1 landlord had filed Regular Darkhast No. 3 of 1983 before the Civil Judge (J.D.) Vijapur for executing the decree. The e...
Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-1988
Reported in: (1989)1GLR497
Ahmadi, J 1. Whether an employer, who applies for approval under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act') has right (dominis litis) to withdraw the proceedings at any stage before a final decision is recorded by the concerned authority That is the question which is raised in this petition brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the employer - the Gujarat State Fertilizers Company Ltd. - against the decision of the Conciliation Officer, Baroda refusing permission to withdraw the application filed under the said provisions. The factual background in which the question arises for consideration may be stated in brief as under. 2. The third respondent, Vinayak S. Desai, was employed as a Research Assistant (Trainee) sometime in October 1972 By the petitioner Company. He was served with a charge-sheet dated January 28, 1974 for certain alleged act of misconduct and was placed under the suspension pending...
Popat Mohan Vaghari Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-1988
Reported in: (1989)1GLR412
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The petitioner has been detained under the provisions of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short 'PASA') pursuant to the order dated April 4, 1988 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad. On the same date i.e. on 4-4-1988 he has been served with the grounds of detention and other relevant papers.2. It is alleged that the petitioner-detenu was dealing in illicit country liquor by storing the same and selling the same to the people either directly or through his servants. That he was carrying on this activity in Dariapur and Mehdikuva localities of the city of Ahmedabad. That there were six criminal cases against him under the provisions of Bombay Prohibitions Act. In one case the quantity of country liquor seized was 375 m.l. In another case it was 10 litres and in three other cases the country liquor seized was 80 litres, 9 litres and 10 litres respectively. In one case he was found drunk and he was convicted for the said offence. Oth...
Windel Submersible Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-07-1988
Reported in: 1993LC60(Gujarat); 1989(23)LC117(Gujarat); 1992(61)ELT421(Guj)
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. These three petitions which raise common questions of law and fact are heard together and we now proceed to dispose them of by this common judgment. The brief facts are that the petitioner-companies are engaged in the manufacture of monoblock pumps which according to them fall under Tariff Item 30A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The petitioner-companies also manufacture a variety of stators and rotors of different horse-powers for captive consumption used in the manufacture of monoblock pumps. The stators and rotors used in the manufacture of monoblock pumps are, according to the petitioners, nothing but parts of the said pumps. The short controversy between the assessee and the revenue is, whether these stators and rotors constitute parts of electric motors falling within Tariff Item 30D or electric motors falling under Tariff Item 30A. The revenue proceeding on the premise that those stators and rotors...
Vanja Gopalji Damji and ors. Vs. Gondal Municipality
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-07-1988
Reported in: (1989)1GLR175
R.J. Shah, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, restraining the respondent-municipality from recovering octroi under the residuary clause of Schedule III on ad valorem basis of 2 paise per rupee of the Octroi Rules of Gondal Municipality and also for an injunction against the respondent-Municipality directing it to adjust the deposits made by the petitioners from 1973 to 1979 under the residuary clause of Schedule HI on the basis of item No. 11 of Schedule II of the Octroi Rules of Gondal Municipality and for an order against the municipality to refund the excess amount of deposits to the petitioners from the year 1973 till the filing of the petition.2. It appears that a notice was issued at the initial stage and in answer to the said notice, an affidavit-in-reply dated 7-9-1979 was filed for the purpose of opposing the petition by the Chief Officer of ...
Khemabhai Virabhai and ors. Vs. Ashok Mills Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-06-1988
Reported in: (1989)1GLR80; (1994)IIILLJ1020Guj
Ahmadi, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, dated January 30, 1985 dismissing the petitioner's application preferred under Sub-section (2) of Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the I.D. Act'). Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this petition are as follows:2. The Board of Directors of Ashok Mills Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, passed a resolution dated May 17, 1950 to sell a certain parcel of its land to the three incorporated companies, namely, Arvind Mills Ltd., Arun Mills Ltd., and Ashok Mills Ltd., for the construction of a joint Hospital for the employees of the said three Mill Companies. The possession of the said parcel of land was delivered in 1953 for carrying out the above objective and a formal deed of conveyance was executed later on December 28, 1953 whereby the said parcel of land was sold to the said three Mill Compani...
Patel Vashram Copalbhai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-05-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Guj231; (1989)1GLR128
Gokulakrishnan, C.J. 1. Rule. Mr. Hawa waives service of the rule. By 'consent, the rule is heard today.2. In this petition, the main prayer is for referring the matter to the Court under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for getting enhanced compensation. The prayer for reference was rejected by the Collector concerned on the ground that the petitioner has, without any demur, accepted the award and as such no reference is possible under S. 18 of the Act. Mr. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, states that there was an oral objection and that said protest was made before the Officer concerned before accepting the award and that the question as to whether there was an objection or not has to be decided by the court, to which reference under S. 18 be made. In order to strengthen the case of the petitioner herein, Mr. Patel read Annexure C to the petition wherein in para. 3(2) it is stated as follows : '3(2). When the said award was declared, on the date of payment also ...
Suleman Husa Devji Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-02-1988
Reported in: (1989)1GLR101
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Special Criminal Application is to quash and set aside the externment order and also the order passed by the appellate authority, confirming the externment order.The petitioner herein was externed for a period of two years from Surat-Rural, Bharuch and Valsad districts. The said order has been confirmed by the Government in its Home Department. Against these orders, the present x petition has been filed.2. The show cause notice is dated 30-11-1987. In this show cause notice, w various charges were levelled against the petitioner herein and it also mentions that the petitioner was involved in the offences of force and violence punishment under Chapters 16 and 17 of the I.P.C. and that he was arrested in all cases and that those cases are still pending trial. For the purpose of disposal of this petition, it is unnecessary for us to give the details of the charges, except the chart given in the show cause notice regarding the cases. that were pending trial...
Sarlaben Virsing and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-01-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1211; (1989)1GLR55
ORDERD.C. Gheewala, J.1. The petitioners are the daughters of the deceased who was allegedly murdered by respondent No. 2 and some others. The Police, after completing the investigation, submitted charge-sheet only against respondent No. 2. The case was committed to the Court of Session where the present petitioners gave an application Ex. 5 asking the learned Sessions Judge to order further investigation, and the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to reject the said application, on the ground that under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he had powers to implead a person not named as an accused, as an accused, if after going through the evidence he thought it fit, but as the evidence was not recorded, the learned Sessions Judge thought that the application deserved to be rejected and he accordingly rejected the same. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred the present revision application, and the only question which was posed before this Court was as t...