Gujarat Court November 1989 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.
Soleman Galsinghbhai Christian @ Soleman Vs. Smt. Nisha Sahai Achuthan ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-23-1989
Reported in: (1990)1GLR420
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. Smt. Nisha Sahai Achuthan, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, specially empowered under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Trafiic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, passed an order dated 19th May, 1989 for the detention of the petitioner on being satisfied that in order to prevent the petitioner from abetting in the sale of Narcotic Drugs it was necessary to make that order. That order is challenged in this petition by the petitioner on various grounds. However, it is not necessary to refer to all of them as this petition deserves to be allowed on the ground that the petitioner was in custody while the detention order came to be passed against him, and there was no material before the detaining authority to show that there was a possibility of the petitioner being released on bail in near future.2. In substance, the allegation against the petitioner is that he is a member of a gang dealing in Brown Sugar. The grounds of detenti...
Ghanchi Husen Umar Udiya Vs. Ghanchanbai Marum Daud Jadia and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-22-1989
Reported in: (1990)1GLR431
J.U. Mehta, J.1. Notice pending admission to respondent No. 4 Miss Valikarimwala, Addl. Public Prosecutor waives service of notice for respondent No. 4.2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Junagadh in favour of the minor children i.e. opponents Nos. 2 and 3 herein for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per montyh each i.e. Rs. 300/- per month from the date of application i.e. 28-9-1984. The order was passed by the learned Magistrate on 18-4-1989. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Application before the Sessions Court, Junagadh. The learned Sessions Judge, Junagadh by his judgment and order dated 12-9-1989 confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate and dismissed the Criminal Revision Application filed by the present petitioner.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view or the provisions contained ...
State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Variava Transport Service ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-20-1989
Reported in: (1990)1GLR301
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 2-12-1986 passed by the learned 3rd Jt. Civil Judge (S.D.), Surat dismissing the application for staying the proceedings, made under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act by the original defendants Nos. 1 and 2 at Exhs. 9 and 14 respectively in Special Civil Suit No. 355 of 1985.2. Short facts of the case leading to this appeal can be stated as under:3. The respondent No. 1 (Org. plaintiff) has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 16,31,286/- from the appellant (original defendant No. 1) and also for certain other reliefs. The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business as contractors for transportation of goods by road from one place to another. The defendant No. 1--appellant is a Trading Corporation and is the canalising agency of the Govt. of India for handling export and import of sugar on no-profit no-loss basis. The defendant No. 2 is the handling agent of the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff alleg...
Karsanbhai H. Parmar Vs. Director of Prohibition and Excise and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-20-1989
Reported in: (1990)1GLR505
M.B. Shah, J.1. The petitioner was promoted on 30th November, 1983 as Sub-Inspector of Prohibition & Excise from the post of Constable. As per Rule 2 of the Rules for the Departmental Examination of the Non-gazetted Prohibition & Excise Officers and Clerks of the Prohibition & Excise Department the petitioner was required to pass the departmental examination within the specified chances during the prescribed period. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner appeared in the examination six times and he has failed.2. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that as the petitioner completed 50 years of age in the year 1987 under the proviso to Rule 2 of the Departmental Examination Rules the Government ought to have granted him exemption from appearing in the examination. Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioner, further contended that at the time of considering application for granting exemption the Government was required to consider only his service record....
Zaverchand Gaekwad Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-18-1989
Reported in: 1991LC632(Gujarat); 1992(61)ELT225(Guj); (1990)2GLR872
J.U. Mehta, J.1. The Petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the orders, Annexures 'G' and 'H' passed by the third and fourth respondents respectively and prayed for quashing and setting aside the same. The third and fourth respondents, by their orders, held that galvanising of strips done by the petitioners is a manufacturing activity under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and, therefore, liable to excise duty under Tariff Item 26AA(ii). 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a Company who is manufacturer of metallic flexible tubes. The petitioner-Company held a licence in Form L-4 to manufacture the said tubes and has been carrying on the activity of manufacturing metallic flexible tubes and hoses for the last couple of years and has been paying duty regularly on the same. The petitioner requires cold rolled strips of various breadths as raw material, for the manufacture of metallic flexible tubes an...
Mansukhlal P. Unadkar Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-17-1989
Reported in: (1990)1GLR621
1. The petitioner who has retired from Government service on 1st June, 1983 has been paid pension only in February, 1988 and that too under the interim orders of the Court. The petitioner claims that he should be paid interest at the rate of 12% on the delayed payment of pension relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of O. P. Gupta v. Union of India (1988-I-LLJ-453). Para 24 of that judgment reads as follows (p. 464) : 'Normally, this Court, as settled practice, has been making direction for payment of interest at 12% on delayed payment of pension. There is no reason for us to depart from that practice in the facts of the present case.' 2. On behalf of the Government, Miss. Doshit submitted that the delay is not due to any fault on the part of the Government; there was a query raised by the Accountant General, respondent No. 4 and the petitioner had produced the certificate of last pay drawn very late an there was some period of absence which was not regularised and s...
Manubhai Kalidas Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-16-1989
Reported in: (1990)2GLR742
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the only contention raised is that in exercise of the powers under Section 13 of the Gujarat Entertainments Tax Act, 1977, the State Government had no jurisdiction to order remand of the proceedings for re-examining the question as to whether the petitioner-owner of the Cinema Theatre, had committed breach of the provisions of the said Act and had defaulted in payment of tax by induging in alleged irregularities in connection with the sale of tickets. We are not concerned with the merits of the controversy between the parties. The fact remains that the first authority being Deputy Commissioner, Entertainments, imposed penalty on the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 1,07,776-00 and the petitioner's appeal was partly allowed by the Collector, Kheda who reassessed the liability to the extent of Rs. 37,688-20 ps. including the penalty. These proceedings were taken in suo motu revision by the State Government ...
Gujarat Foods and Drugs Control Administration Gazetted Officers Assoc ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-15-1989
Reported in: (1990)2GLR900
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The petitioner is 'the Gujarat Food & Drugs Control Administration Gazetted Officers' Association. For the post of Joint Commissioner, Gujarat Drugs Service, Class-I, advertisement dated February 28, 1989 has been issued by the respondent authorities. By this advertisement, applications for the post in question have been invited. This has given rise to this petition. The petitioners pray that the rules providing for direct recruitment he declared illegal unconstitutional and void and the advertisement dated February 28, 1989 published in newspaper and produced at Annexure 'B' also be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to make appointment to the post in question from the employees serving in the lower post of Deputy Commissioner.2. The Joint Director (Administration) Drugs Control Administration (Recruitment) Rules, 1972 inter alia provide for appointment by direct recruitment to the post of Joint Director, which has been now designated as Joint Comm...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›