Gujarat Court May 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.
Air Control and Chemical Engg. Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-1989
Reported in: 1990(26)ECC324; 1991(51)ELT265(Guj); (1990)1GLR234
Nanavati, J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition challenging the vires of Section 37B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and for quashing that order dated 23-2-1989, passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals). 2. The learned advocate for the petitioners states that the petitioners are not now challenging the vires of Section 37B and are confining their challenge to the order dated 23-2-1989 only. He submitted that the order dated 23-2-1989 passed by the Collector (Appeals) deserves to be set aside on the ground that he has disregarded the Trade Notice issued under Section 37B of the Act though the same was binding on him so far as the classification of the goods is concerned. For appreciating the submission, it will be necessary to refer to Section 37B, the relevant part of which is set out below :- '37B. The Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 may, if it considers it necessary or expedient so to do for the ...
Triveniben Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ273; (1989)2GLR923
P.M. Chauhan, J.1. Petitioner, the mother of Shashikant Keshavlal Parmar, who is sentenced to death in Sessions Case No. 57 of 1980 by the Sessions Judge, Rajkot, for committing the triple murder of (1) Vibha Narendra Dave, (2) Ashaben Narandra Dave and (3) Gaurishankar Ishwarlal Dave, which was confirmed in confirmation Case No. 1 of 1981 and the Criminal Appeal No. 826/81 arising from the aforesaid Sessions case was dismissed by the High Court on Jan., 19, 1982 and the Appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court of India on July 26, 1982, but preferred this petition under Articals 14, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India for directing the concerned authorities not to implement the order of execution of Shashikant Keshavlal Parmar until the mercy petition preferred by the petitioner is considered by the President of India.2. After the Appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court Mercy Petition under Article 161 of the Constitution of India was submitted by Shashikant Keshavlal Parmar on Aug...
Dalvadi Sukhabhai Chhagan and ors. Etc. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ2502; (1989)2GLR1239
R.J. Shah, J.1. This is a group of petitions wherein the central question that arises for decision is as under:Whether the fundamental right to a speedy trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution requires that in the case of capital offences, the right to speedy trial should be concretised by fixing any time limit? 2. In the present group of petitions the petitioners are all life convicts. In Misc. Criminal Application No. 2585 of 1988 the time that is taken between the date of filing of the criminal appeal in question and the date of filing of the Criminal Misc. Application is 5 years, 2 months and 15 days. In Misc. Criminal Application No. 2598 of 1988, the time that is taken between the date of filing of the criminal appeal in question and the date of filing of Misc. Criminal Application is one year and 9 months. So far as other Misc. Criminal Applications are concerned, such periods fall within the two aforesaid extremes.3. In all the petitions, it has been urged that there ...
indica Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-1989
Reported in: 1991(32)ECC15; 1991LC40(Gujarat); 1990(50)ELT210(Guj); (1989)2GLR1120
Majmudar, J.1. In this group of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have brought in challenge the action of the authorities functioning under the provisions of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 ('the Act' for short) refusing benefit of the exemption Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 to the concerned petitioners. They have also brought in challenge the show cause notices issued to them under Section 11A of the Act and have further challenged consequential orders confirming the demands contained in the impugned show cause notice. The petitioners have also challenged the vires of paras 2 and 3 of the exemption Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 as amended by Notification No. 223/87 dated 22-9-1987. 2. As these petitions involve common questions of law and facts, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Introductory facts : Before highlighting the nature of controversy posed for our consideration in this g...
Pravinbhai Mangabhai Desai and anr. Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ518; (1989)2GLR443
P.M. Chauhan, J.1. Petitioners, the accused in Special Criminal Case No. 13 of 1988, in the Court of the Special Judge, Court No. 5, Ahmedabad, having failed to get the discharge order on the ground that the Cement (Quality Control) Order, 1962 was issued prior to the cement being declared as essential commodity and, therefore, the said order is imoperative, null and void and the charge for the offence punishable under Section 7, read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, should not be framed against them, have challenged the order by the Special Judge, Court No. 5, Ahmedabad, asserting the same contentions and also that the Cement (Quality Control) Order is beyond the competence of the Central Government as no such order could be issued under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. To appreciate the contentions the factual background leading to the prosecution may be narrated in short.2. Chunilal B. Mistry, a building contractor, complained to the Controller,...
Patel Manubhai Khodidas Vs. Sonara and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Guj186; (1989)2GLR493
ORDER1. The petitioner is an elected member of Mehsana Taluka Panchayat. Respondent No, 3 is the President of that Panchayat. It is the case of the petitioner that a large number of members of the Panchayat have lost confidence in respondent No. 3 as they have found that he is lethargic in performance of his duties. For that reason, Sagrambbai Chaudhari, another elected member of the Panchayat, had given a notice of his intention to move a no-confidence motion against respondent No. 3 on 15-12-1988. Respondent No. 3 was duty bound to convene a meeting for considering the motion of no confidence pursuant to the said notice but he did not do so in collusion with respondent No. 1, who is the Secretary-cum-Project Officer-cum-Taluka Development Officer of that Panchayat. Both of them in collusion filed the said notice on the ground that the same was not in the prescribed form. Again, on 31-1-1989 the petitioner, along with 21 other members, gave a notice of their intention to move a no-con...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›