Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1990)2GLR830
R.J. Shah, J.1. In all the above petitions, common questions arise. The petitions are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The facts leading to the present group of petitions, broadly speaking, are as under:The petitioners are Unarmed Head Constables. The next promotional post in the case of the petitioners is that of Sub-Inspector of Police. Instruction 61(1) contained in the Gujarat Police Manual, 1975, Vol. I, Administration (First Edition), it is provided 'inter alia' as under:61. Unarmed Police Sub-Inspectors:(1) Sub-Inspectors are recruited direct by competitive examination and by promotion of Officers from the lower ranks. 50 per cent of the appointments on the sanctioned cadre of Sub-Inspectors are filled by direct recruitment. Half of the remaining 50 per cent posts are filled by promotion of Officers from the lower ranks and the other half by promotion of Head Constables on passing the Sub-Inspector' course at the Police Training School.Instruction 165(1)(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1990CriLJ2333; (1990)1GLR396
R.J. Shah J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the original accused in Sessions Case No. 71 of 1987, which was on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad.2. The case of the prosecution, shortly stated, was as under:--Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are father and mother respectively of accused Nos. 3 and 4. An incident had taken place at about 5.15 p.m. on 3-12-86 at the entrance of Vohravad, Dakore. At that time, the complainant was, after leaving her school, going towards the house. She saw that all the accused had assembled at the corner of the pole. The prosecution had alleged that on seeing the complainant, accused uttered threatening words to her. Prosecution had alleged that accused No. 2 Ansuyaben was beating the complainant with her hands. In the meanwhile, Bhadrasinh, the deceased husband of the complainant, came on the scene riding a cycle for the purpose of going to his house. As soon as deceased Bhadrasinh came near the scene of offence, accused No. 1 started to beat the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1990)1GLR503
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioner who is detained under the provisions of the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 ('the Act' for short) has brought in challenge the detention order dated 25-7-1989 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat.2. The submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that while considering the question of less drastic remedy by way of externment of the petitioner under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, one vital fact has not been considered by the detaining authority presumably because it was not placed before him by the sponsorting authority and that fact is that even in past, his own office had initiated externment proceedings against the petitioner for his alleged bootlegging activities and other nefarious activities on 15-10-1987. That these proceedings had culminated into order of externment which ultimately was set aside in appeal by the State Government on 25-4-1988. That from 15-10-1987 to 25-4-1988, not a single prohibition c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1990)1GLR669
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The petitioner who is the original plaintiff has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 33 of 1978 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Chanasama against the respondents, who are the original defendants. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for the purpose of obtaining possession on the basis of his title claiming the same under a sale made in his favour by the defendants. It appears that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 wanted to amend the written statement and ultimately succeeded in obtaining such an order from this Court. Thereafter they amended their written statement and applied to the trial Court to refer issues Nos. 8 and 9 raised in view of the amended written statement to appropriate authorities. The issues are:8. Whether the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 prove that the suit field is fragment? If yes, what is the effect?9. Whether the plaintiff proves that he was an agriculturist on 29-6-1968?' The learned Civil Judge granted that application, Ex. 79, and ordered that issue No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1990Guj190; (1990)2GLR992
ORDER1. Manek Metal Syndicate, the respondent in this revision application Summary Suit No. 7034/80 in the City Civil Court at Bombay against Variety Body Builders, a partnership firm for recovering Rs.10610-36 with interest and costs. The suit was decreed ex Party for an amount of Rs. 12905-32. It appears that the decree holder recovered Rs.5750/- from two partners of the said, firm. As the remaining amount of Rs. 155-32 could not be recovered by the decree-holder, it filed Execution Application in the City Civil Court and got the same transferred to the District Court at Baroda. That Court transferred the said decree to the Court of Civil Judie (S.D.), Vadodara for execution. The learned Civil Judge issued Jangam warrant for the properties of the partnership firm but as no property belonging to the partnership was found at the place mentioned in the warrant the degree-holder applied to that Court to issue notices to Prabhatilal Sharma, Jugal kishore Prabhatilal Sharma and the two pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1990Guj130; (1990)1GLR626
Ravani, J. 1. The appellant is a holder of vacant land situated within the urban agglomeration area of Raikot. The Competent Officer, by order dated December 7, 1983 declared that out of the total land holding of the petitioner, land admeasuring 2015.30 sgm. is surplus. Against the aforesaid order the appellant preferred appeal under Section 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 before the Urban Land Tribunal. The appeal has been rejected vide order dated September 7, 1987. The appellant challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal by filing special civil application No. 1009 of 1988. The petition came up for hearing before the learned single Judge (Coram: G. T. Nanavati, J.) of this High Court who has summarily rejected the petition as per his order dated March 1, 1988. It is against this order that the present letters patent appeal is filed.2. The Urban Land Tribunal at any Tate exercises quasi judicial powers, if not judicial ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1990)1GLR377
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. The above acquittal appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 2nd December, 1980, in Criminal Case No. 407 of 1980, passed by the learned J.M.F.C, Anjar-Kachchh, whereby the respondent-accused Luhar Mithu @ Harun Ismail who came to be tried for the offence under Section 142 of Bombay Police Act, 1951 (for short hereafter referred to as 'Police Act') came to be acquitted.2. The accused was admittedly externed out of the area of Kachchh district and all adjoining districts by the externment order dated 16th October, 1979, passed under Section 56 of the Police Act by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Anjar for two years. The accused had also admittedly entered Anjar town without and prior permission and was arrested on 6th August 1980, by P.S.I. Mr. V.S. Patel. Thus, for the alleged breach of extemment order, a complaint came to be filed for offence under Section 142 of the Police Act against the accused, who was ultimately chargesheeted for the same to stan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1990Guj176; (1990)1GLR423
Ravani, J.1. Directors of certain specified co-operative societies are occupying the chairs even beyond the term for which they have secured mandate. Should the orders of the court and provisions of law be interpreted in such a way that majority of them can continue to hold the office for at least one year more; if not two? Should the court substitute the mandate of the electorate by its order? These are some of the questions, which need to be examined and answered.2. By filing Special Civil Application No. 787/88, respondent No. 1, original petitioner in Special Civil Application prayed that the elections of the directors of the Mehsana District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, respondent No. 2 in the petition be not held simultaneously, but the same be held by rotation at the interval of one year on the basis of the constituencies represented by respective directors whose term have expired first. By filing, Special Civil Application No. 3351 of 1988, the petitioner in that petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1990)1GLR236; (1991)IILLJ377Guj
Majmudar, J.1. The learned Advocate for the petitioner is permitted to file separate writ petitions under Art. 227 of the Constitution challenging common orders in group of Recovery Applications Nos. 320 to 471 of 1980 under Section 33-(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Special Civil Application No. 4256 of 1989 will be treated to be writ petition against the order in Recovery Application No. 320 of 1980. Separate writ petitions would be filed which may be treated as companion writ petitions challenging common order in Recovery Applications Nos. 321 of 1980 to 471 of 1980, meaning thereby, 151 additional companion petitions will be filed. They will bear necessary Court-fees. They will be filed on only one page showing names of the parties. Filing of rest of the pages in the petition and annexures dispensed with as they arise from the common award which was in consolidated proceedings. All these 152 petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Rule in each of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1991(55)ELT25(Guj); (1990)2GLR1017
A.P. Ravani, J.1. On October, 6, 1988 Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which provides for recovery of MODVAT credit wrongly availed of or utilised in an irregular manner has been partially amended. While amending the Rule, did the Legislature manifest an intention to grant amnesty to all those manufacturers who were alleged to have wrongfully availed of the credit Did the legislature intend to demolish or destroy all that was done under the unamended provision of the Rule These and other common questions of fact and law arise in all these petitions. Hence, at the request and with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, all these matters are being heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The undisputed facts pertaining to all these petitions are that the petitioners are manufacturers of one or other article which is subject to excise duty under the relevant provisions of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (for sho...
Tag this Judgment!