Gujarat Court March 1989 Judgments
The State of Gujarat Vs. Lalit Mohan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2341; (1989)2GLR230
K.J. Vaidya, J. 1. Questions and/or errors that surface in this acquittal appeal are threefold --Firstly, whether the Trial Court was justified in passing the order of acquittal in summons triable case without taking evidence referred to in Section 254 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?Secondly, whether the trial court has conducted trial proceedings in a manner ordinarily expected of the court of law doing justice?Thirdly, whether the case disposed of in a hot haste can be said to be a case decided and justice done?2. To this short answer would be had the trial Court been little watchful and considerate the mishap of acquittal could have been safely avoided. Be it remembered that judicial function is a matter of clean conscience to be performed with the sense of diligence, dedication and social orientation in light of awareness only and that such a hurry and flurry as noticed in the present case in disposing of the case, never enhances the prestige of the Court doing justice.3. The ab...
Tag this Judgment!Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-1989
Reported in: (1990)1GLR462
M.N. Venkatachaliah, J.1. This appeal by the assessee, the Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd., arises out of and are directed against the judgment dated 23-1-1974, of the High Court of Gujarat in Income-tax Reference 78 of 1970, answering in favour of the Revenue a question of law referred to it under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (Act) by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.2. On 8-6-1961, the assessee, a company in the manufacture of antibiotics and pharmaceuticals was granted licence for the manufacture, on its plant, of the wellknown antibiotic, penicillin. In the initial years of its venture the assessee was able to achieve only moderate yields from the penicillin-producing strains used by it which yielded only about 5000 units of penicillin per millilitre of the culture-medium.In the year 1963, with a view to increasing the yield of penicillin the assessee negotiated with M/s. Meiji Seika Kaisha Limited ('Meiji' for short), a reputed enterprise engaged in the manufacture...
Tag this Judgment!Bhailal Punamchand Gandhi and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-1989
Reported in: (1989)2GLR877; [1989]180ITR291(Guj)
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J. 1. Rule. Mr. R. P. Bhatt, appears and waives service of rule. 2. This special civil application is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax which is at annexure 'A-5' to the special civil application. The petitioner herein filed a petition under section 18B of the Wealth-tax Act for waiving the penalty under section 18(1)(a) for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. 3. On prior notice served upon the respondent, Mr. R. P. Bhatt appears and states that the petitioners have not made payment of wealth-tax for the years in question. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax dismissed the petition on two grounds, viz. : (1) The petitioners have not paid the wealth-tax for the years 1967-68 to 1969-70; and (2) That section 18B is not applicable since it came into force only on October 1, 1975. 4. It is clear from the facts of the case even prior to the amendment, inserting section 18B in the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, by the Taxation Laws (A...
Tag this Judgment!Chhaganbhai Motibhai Bhoi and anr. Vs. Anand Area Development Authorit ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Guj76; (1989)2GLR913
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Special Civil Application is preferred for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus by quashing and setting aside the show cause notices at Annexs. 'A' and 'B' and directing the respondents to treat it as null and void.2. The short facts of this case are that plot No. 170/1 was originally owned by respondent No. 4 herein. This plot was divided into plots Nos. 165/1 and 165 /12. Plot No. 165/1 admeasures 457.40.65 sq. mts. while plot No. 165/2 admeasures 229.12.50 sq. mtrs. respectively.3. Under the Town Planning Scheme, in place of original plot No. 170/1, which was acquired, plot No. 165/1 was given back to the respondent No. 4 who is the original owner of plot No. 170/ 1. It is alleged by the petitioners that the petitioners herein were the original tenants under respondent No. 4 in respect of original plot No. 170/ 1. After the division of this plot and allotting plot No. 165/1 to res...
Tag this Judgment!Mehsana Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. State of Gujarat and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-1989
Reported in: (1989)2GLR846
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Special Civil Application is for issuing a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus, a writ of quo warranto or a writ in the nature of quo warranto or any other appropriate writ or direction. restraining respondent No. 3 from acting as the Chariman of the 2rd respondent-Board and respondent Nos. 4 to 11 from acting as members of the Gujarat State Agricultural Marketing Board, who is the 2nd respondent herein, with effect from 24th February, 1989. There is a further prayer to declare the Gujarat Agricultural Prcduce Markets (Amendment) Amending Act, 1989 as unconstitutional. There is also a further prayer in the Special Civil Application for issue of a writ of mandamus fur directing the 1st respondent to hold the election of 12 elected members under Section 34A Sub-section (1) Clauses (ii) and (iii) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963. It is an admitted case that the first appointment of members contemplated under Clauses (i...
Tag this Judgment!Chandravadan A. Taktawala and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-1989
Reported in: [1990]182ITR103(Guj)
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J. 1. Both these petitions raise a common question in respect of the Wealth-tax Act. The parties have come before this court under article 226 of the Constitution for the purpose of quashing the notice issued by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax on January 21, 1989, and February 20, 1989, respectively. In and by the notice dated January 21, 1989, issued to the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1887 of 1989, the Commissioner has stated : '... 2. On perusal of the records, it is observed that your claim of income-tax liability of Rs. 44,09,723 for the assessment years 1975-76 to 1981-82 and wealth-tax liability of Rs. 47,893 for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1981-82 are allowed as a deduction while computing the net wealth. This deduction was allowed on the basis of your claim of self assessment taxes having been paid under the Income-tax and Wealth-tax Acts for the above years. The above liabilities which are claimed by you and allowed while computing the...
Tag this Judgment!Manubhai Sudhabhai Sodha Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-1989
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1548
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Special Criminal Application is to quash and set aside the order passed by the respondent No. 2, which is Annexure 'D' to the Special Criminal Application and also the notice Annexure 'B' to the Special Criminal Application. There is a further prayer to quash the order of the respondent No. 1, who confirmed the externment order passed by the respondent No. 2. On 27-1-1987, the Deputy Police Commissioner, Surat City, who is the respondent No. 2, issued notice under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, alleging the following charges against the petitioner herein :'(1) On 19-7-1985, at 00.20 hours, there was exchange of stone-throwing between the Hindus and Muslims crowds, consisting of about 100 to 200 persons and you were leading the Hindus. You, along with your associates (1) Laxman alias Lati Atmaram Bharaiya, (2) Devji Prema Kathiyawadi, and (3) Dahya Prema Kathiyawadi, all residents of Navsari Bazar, Malekwadi, Surat, incited about 100 Hindus, all re...
Tag this Judgment!Mulubha Bachubha Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-15-1989
Reported in: (1989)2GLR1025
M.B. Shah, J.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 11th January, 1988 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeal), Gujarat State, in revision under Section 35 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Art, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the 'Fragmentation Act', the petitioner-Purchaser of the land has filed this Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The short question which is required to be considered in this petition is whether the transfer of land admeasuring 1 acre 25 gunthas out of Block No. 189 of village Kudasan, Taluka/District Gandhinagar is illegal and void under the provisions of the Fragmentation Act.3. Respondent No. 3 - Natverbhal Atmaram was the owner of Block No. 189 admeasuring Hectare 1, Are 31, Sq. Mt. 99 of land of village Kudasan, Taluka/District Gandhinagar. By a registered sale-deed dated 9th June, 1981 half of the land was transferred to the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagribhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-10-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2531
M.B. Shah, J.1. Against the acquittal order dated 6th March 1982 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad at Narol, in Sessions Case No. 114/81, the State has filed this appeal.2. At the time of admission of this appeal the Court admitted the appeal only against accused Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 13. Against rest of the accused the appeal was dismissed.3. In all 15 persons of Bharwad community were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the prosecution version that on 2nd June 1981 at about 6 p.m. the accused with other members of the Bharwad community formed an unlawful assembly with the common object to commit murders and cause grievous hurt or hurt to the members of Patel community and of committing riots in Bavla town, taluka Dholka, District Ahmedabad. They were armed with deadly weapons like sticks, dharias and Farsi etc. They came out from the Bharwad locality (Bharwad Vas), went towards the north i.e. t...
Tag this Judgment!D.B. Chawada Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-02-1989
Reported in: (1990)1GLR5
R.C. Mankad, J.1. Important question which arises for consideration in this petition is whether the petitioner, who was appointed as a Clerk on daily wages or as work-charged clerk within the prescribed age limit can claim benefit under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 8 of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 ('General Rules' for short) on his regular appointment as clerk on the work-charged establishment, after he had crossed the upper age limit prescribed for the said post.2. The above question arises in the background of the following undisputed facts:Petitioner was appointed as Clerk on daily wages for the period from June 21, 1979 to September 30, 1981 under Capital Project (Sub-Division No. 8) at Gandhinagar. On October 1, 1981 the petitioner was appointed as work-charged Clerk for 29 days under order dated October 1, 1981 passed by the Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings Department, Godhra ('Executive Engineer' for short). On expiry of 29 days p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »