Gujarat Court April 1989 Judgments
Divya Vasundhara Financiers Ltd. Vs. K.N. Samant and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-25-1989
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas646(Guj)
Majmudar, J.1. These two company applications have been moved by the Court Committee for Divya Vasundhara Financiers P. Ltd. for getting suitable directions from this court for removal of alleged encroachment made on the company's properties by the concerned opponents. 2. In Company Application No. 25 of 1988, 24 such opponents are listed at list 'A' while, in Company Application No. 43 of 1988, 19 opponents are listed at list 'A'. Thus, these directions are sought against, in all, 43 opponents in both these applications. During the pendency of hearing of these applications, some of the opponents in Company Application No. 25 of 1988 have been made allottees of the concerned portions of land occupied by them and, therefore, Company Application No. 25 of 1988 will not survive against these opponents. They are at Sl. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 21, 22, 23, and 24 at list 'A' to Company Application No. 25 of 1988. Consequently, Company Application No. 25 of 1988 now survives against opponents Nos...
Tag this Judgment!Shanabhai Mangalbhai Patel and ors. Vs. Bhagavanbhai Revabhai Patel an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-25-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Guj74
ORDER1. Rule. Mr. A. J. Patel waives service of rule on behalf of respondents. In the facts of the case at the request of and with the consent of the parties, the matter is ordered to be heard today.2. The petitioners-plaintiffs filed suit praying for declaration that the property in dispute, namely agricultural land admeasuring 1 acre and 10 goonthas and a residential house, belong to the plaintiffs and for injunction that respondents-defendants be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. The respondents-defendants appeared in the suit and resisted the claim of the plaintiffs on facts as well as on law points, Before commencement of recording of oral evidence, the plaintiffs filed application being Ex. 40 for amendment in the plaint. The plaintiffs alleged that the suit was with respect to ancestral property and by mistake the plaintiffs omitted to write that the father of the plaintiffs had 1/2 share in the property. For the reasons stated in the application...
Tag this Judgment!NajuddIn KarimuddIn Shaikh Vs. the Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-25-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ276; (1989)2GLR266
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner Najuddin Karimuddin Shaikh has brought in challenge the order of his preventive detention passed against him by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City Mr. M. C. Kalma on 15-9-1988 in exercise of the powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 ('PASA Act' for short). He has also been supplied with the grounds of detention of even date when he was taken in detention pursuant to the impugned order.2. At the time of final hearing of this petition, various contentions were canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition. However, ultimately he highlighted one contention which, in our view, goes to the root of the matter and which makes it unnecessary for us to refer to the other contentions. The contention which Was vehemently canvassed for our consideration was to the effect that the Detaining Authority while p...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Girnar Cement Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-1989
Reported in: 1990(25)ECC436; 1990LC431(Gujarat); 1992(61)ELT217(Guj)
ORDERG.T. Nanavati, J.1. The Petitioners have filed an appeal in the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal against the order passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Rajkot on 26-5-1988. The petitioners also applied for stay of the operation of the said order passed by the Collector, pending their appeal. The Tribunal by its order dated 5-10-1988, rejected the petitioners request to exempt them from the requirement of depositing the duty and penalty amount determined by the Collector. The Tribunal merely exempted the petitioners from the requirement of depositing the penalty amount and directed them to deposit the amount of duty within six weeks from the date of communication of that order and report compliance with that order within seven weeks. It is this order which is challenged in petition. 2. What is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that hearing of the stay application was fixed on 5-10-1988. The notice of hearing was received by the...
Tag this Judgment!Sandeep Cement (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-1989
Reported in: I(1991)ACC263; 1991ACJ397; AIR1990Guj140; (1989)2GLR577
ORDER1. The petitioner herein had consigned coal at Rurkela in a broad guage wagon to be delivered at Mahuva. The coal was transhipped from the broad guage wagon into 3 small meter guage wagons at Sabarmati. Out of the said 3 meter guage wagons, 2 of them bearing Nos. 60718 and 3206 were delivered at Mahuva. The third wagon, bearing No. 53024 containing 13,320 M.Ts. was not delivered. The said delivery of 2 meter guage wagons was against the production of Original Railway Receipt No. 258449. A certificate was issued on 02-04-1983 by the Station Master, Mahuva, to the effect that the said third wagon was not delivered. The petitioner therefore prays that a writ of mandamus may be issued against the respondents restraining them from withholding the delivery of coal as per the contract. 2. Mr. T. H. Sompura, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that there is a clear admission by the respondent Railway Administration in the form of the letter written by the Station Master, Mahuva, ...
Tag this Judgment!Nasir Ahmed Noor Ahmed Shaikh Vs. P.M. Raichaudhri and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-1989
Reported in: (1989)2GLR1047
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This petition is to quash the order of externment of the petitioner, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad city, and also the order in Appeal, passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Gujarat.2. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated July 22, 1987, under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 for the activities enumerated under Section 56 of the Act. The show cause notice clearly states that the petitioner is a dangerous and aggressive person and he is indulging in the acts of force and violence. It further states that the petitioner is indulging in such activities with the help of his companions on the Sarkhej High-way Road, near the end of the road going towards Vejalpur, near Haji Bawa's Kui, near Sonal Cinema, in Juhapura, near Juhapura Agro Petrol Pump and near Cemetery besides Sonal Cinema. These areas are situated within the jurisdiction of Satellite Police Station. It is further stated in the notice th...
Tag this Judgment!Desai Dharamsinhbhai Taljabhai and ors. Vs. Babulal M. Jathalal Patel ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Guj161; (1989)2GLR473
ORDER1. This petition arises out of the general election of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Patan, and the decision of the Director of Agricultural Marketing & Rural Finance, Gujarat State, in Election Petition No. 193 of 1985. The irector passed and published at order dated 30-7-1985 fixing 30-I1-1985 as the date of election of the members of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Patan. By a notification dated 24-8-1985 he also fixed 3-9-1985 as the date for communicating to the Authorised Officer the names as required by Rule 7 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 for preparation of the lists of voters. 24-8-1985 was the date fixed by him for calling for necessary information by the Authorised Officer. The date for publication of the preliminary lists of voters was fixed as 10-9-1985. The last date for submitting the applications/ objections for additions and alterations in the preliminary lists was fixed as 24-9-1985. He fixed 27-9-1985 as the date...
Tag this Judgment!Jawarmal Ramkaran Vs. Pari Keshavlal Jamnadas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-04-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Guj42; (1989)2GLR927
ORDER1. What is important? Means or the ends? Adherence to the rules of procedure and insistence on strict compliance with the requirements of procedural law may result into failure of justice, which is the ultimate object to be achieved in all cases. Hence the questions: What is the object of procedure? Why and when amendment in pleadings should be granted and when the same may be refused? These questions may be examined and answered by keeping in view the principle that rules of procedure are only means to achieve the end - which is justice. 2. The respondent-plaintiff filed suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,37,506.74 ps. and interest accrued thereon. According to the plaintiff the amount due was on account of goods sold and delivered and the defendant has not paid the price thereof. The defendant filed written statement and denied the contract of sale between the parties and resisted the suit on facts as well as on law points. After framing the issues, the court proceeded to r...
Tag this Judgment!Himmatbhai Prabhubhai Kanthariya Vs. the Ahmedabad City Civil Court St ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-04-1989
Reported in: (1989)2GLR994
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The appellant-original plaintiff in a Class 111 employee in City Civil Court. Ahmedabad and the respondent is City Civil Court Staff Welfare Association. The question is about the continuation of the appellant as a member of the Welfare Association. The contention of the respondent welfare Association is that the appellant having resigned as a member of the Class III Employees' Union, he automatically ceases to be the member of the Welfare Association. Reliance has been placed on 'amended' Rule 2 which reads as under2. All persons who are members of the Ahmedabad City Civil Coun Class 111 Servants Union and are interested in furtherance of the objects of the Association contained in the Memorandum of Association and are accepted by the Association shall be eligible for membership.The 'unamended' Rule reads as follows:All persons who are in Class III cadre of the Ahmedabad City Civil Court establishment and who are interested in furtherance of the objects of the Associa...
Tag this Judgment!Station Road CabIn Holders Association Vs. Mehsana Nagar Palika and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-04-1989
Reported in: (1989)2GLR891
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. Rule This Special Civil Application is for declaring the action of the respondent-Nagar Palika of issuing a Notice dated 30-5-1986 as unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, illegal, null and void, and for quashing the same. There is a further prayer for declaring Section 183 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 as unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and illegal, null and void. Other consequential prayers have been made. The short facts of this case are. that the petitioner is an Association representing the cabin holders at the Station Road. It has 46 members and they belong to Pakistan originally and are here as refugees after partition. The members of the petitioner-Association are petty traders and it is alleged that they got the land from the respondent-Nagar Palika on a rental basis and constructed small cabins for carrying on their trade. Their trading activities ar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »