Gujarat Court July 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.
Chandrakant Girdharlal Soni Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-29-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2256; 1990LC361(Gujarat); 1991(54)ELT172(Guj); (1990)1GLR166
1. The petitioner detenu has been detained pursuant to order dated August 31, 1988 (Annexure-A) passed by the detaining authority (Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Gujarat) under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter refereed to as 'COFEPOSA'). The order has been passed with a view to preventing the detenu from engaging in transporting smuggled goods. The order has been executed on September 5, 1988 and since then the petitioner is under detention. 2. The grounds of detention served upon the petitioner-detenu disclose that on December 27, 1987, at Ahmedabad Railway Station, the petitioner-detenu and Smt. Kantaben N. Rana when got down from Saurashtra Mail coming from Bombay were intercepted. They were taken to Central Excise Office, Jivabhai Mansion, Ahmedabad. Personal search of both of them was taken. As a result of the search two pieces of gold weigh...
Gulammahomad Noormahomad Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-1989
Reported in: (1990)1GLR1
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Special Criminal Application is to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside and also to quash the order of externment passed by Respondent No. 2 dated 20-3-1989 and order of confirmation by Respondent No. 3 dated 7-6-1989.2. The petitioner was given a show cause notice on 30-5-1988 under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act In the show cause notice, the following allegation have been made:It is alleged against you that you are a dangerous and desperate person and indulge in acts involving force and violance. You terrorise the residents of the localities, with the help of accomplices, known as Capri Hotel, near Advance Talkies. Near Bhadra Tar Office, near Capri Hotel, around Municipal Market Navrangpura. Swastik Char Rasta, areas under Karanj and Navrangpura Police Station.It is further stated that such activities were being committed since the month of February, 1988 and specifically it is stated that the p...
Patel Dadubhai Narsibhai (Decd.) Through His Heirs and Lrs. Jayaben D. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-1989
Reported in: (1990)1GLR673
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of the same judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Nadiad in Special Civil Suit No. 80 of 1973. The plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs. 53,000/- on the allegation that the defendant-Gujarat Electricity Board had committed breach of the contract inasmuch as 'the Board' disconnected the supply of electricity wrongfully and consequently the plaintiff suffered loss to the extent of Rs. 53,000/-. The defendant-Board resisted the suit on facts as well as on law points and also filed counter claim of Rs. 6,363.38 ps. After recording the evidence and after hearing the parties, the trial Court ordered to dismiss the counter claim filed by the defendant-Board. But it partially decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and ordered the defendant-Board to pay Rs. 6,625/- as damages to plaintiff No. 1 with cost of the suit and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum till realisation.2. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied...
State of Gujarat Vs. Dhirajlal Pranshankar Bhatt and Etc. Etc.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-25-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2122; (1990)1GLR201
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The State being aggrieved by mass disposal by acquittal in 96 criminal cases has preferred these appeals and contended that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has gravely erred in doing so merely because the complaint-factory Inspector was hot present on that day especially when on all previous occasions, he was present and witnesses were also present on several dates. It is also submitted that the complainant, a public servant was transferred and therefore he had sent a telegram and another person Mr. Parekh was present in the Court on that day.On behalf of the respondents, learned Counsels have submitted that under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate has the jurisdiction and discretion to pass such an order and the learned Magistrate has given reasons for dismissing the complaint.Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:--'256(1). If the summons has been issued on complaint, and on the day appointed for the app...
Chittaranjan Ghanshyambhai Brahmbhatt Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-25-1989
Reported in: (1989)2GLR1366
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Special Civil Application challenges amended Rules 9(2) and 9(4) of the Gujarat Municipalities (President and Vice President) (Election) Rules, 1964, which came into force by the Gujarat Notification dated 17-10-1987. The petitioner came with this Special Civil Application before the election of the President and Vice President, stating that as per the amended Rule 9(2), the meeting that will be convened for the purpose of electing the President, will elect the President by show of hands and if that be it will be against the provisions of the Gujarat Municipalities Act. We issued notice to respondents and refused the interim relief on 21-6-1989. After notice, it comes up before us. Mr. M.C. Shah, Advocate, appears for the Municipality, the 4th respondent herein. Notice has also been served upon the State of Gujarat. Mr. Amin, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, canvass before us that the amendment to Rule 9(2) as it stands today, is in con...
Milan Travels Vs. the General Manager, Western Railway, Bombay and anr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-20-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Guj137; (1989)2GLR565
ORDER1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order in appeal by the Railway Board rejecting the appeal against the order of Western Railway which in turn had rejected the application of the petitioner for licence as the Rail Travellers' Service Agent, observing that when the appeal was decided in the month of July, 1988, about 160 reservations per day were done at Bhuj and as per the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Railways, it is not necessary to issue licence to any travel agent at any railway station where the daily reservation is less than 500. Another reason for rejecting the appeal was that R. B. Thakkar had filed a Civil Suit in the Civil Court at Bhuj for licence as a Travel Agent and in that the respondent had also taken the contention that no proposal of other applicant is being considered and therefore in case the licence is to be issued, the prayer for licence by other agents are required to be considered.2. The petitioner applied for the licence as ...
Gujarat University, Ahmedabad Vs. Harita R. Trivedi and ors., Etc.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-19-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Guj181; (1990)2GLR717
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. In all these Letters Patent Appeals, the appellant which is the Gujarat University assails the judgment and order of the learned single Judge on the ground that the learned single Judge should not have directed the appellant to give admission to the petitioners in the main Special Civil Application to the postgraduate degree, courses. According to the appellant, the reasoning given by the learned single Judge in giving such direction cannot be sustained. It is clear from the judgment (1984 Guj LT 95) rendered by the learned single Judge over which the present Letters Patent Appeals have been filed that the learned single Judge has given directions to the authorities namely the Gujarat University and its Selection Committee and also the respondent No. 3 in that petition that henceforth, they shall not resort to spot selection method and also observed that it is grossly arbitrary and open to serious suspicion about even integrity. After observing so, the learn...
Kaushik Transport Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-18-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Guj102; (1990)1GLR21
G.T. Nanavati, J. 1. The appellant was the owner of truck bearing No. GTD 5177. He sold the said truck to Himatlal Jaysukhlal-original defendant No. 3, on 1-10-1975. On payment of price, delivery of the truck was given to Himatlal on that day. A sale deed in that behalf was also executed. It was agreed by the parties that motor vehicle taxes on and from 1-10-1975 were to be paid by the purchaser. The applicant had also informed the registering authority about this transfer by its letter dated 3-10-1975 and had also sent a copy of the sale deed along with it. The appellant, however, received a notice in 1982 calling upon it to pay the motor vehicle tax and penalty for the period from 1-10-1975 to 31-12-1981. The appellant pointed out to the registering authority that it had already transferred the truck in 1975 but the registering authority did not accept this plea of the appellant on the ground that the appellant has not ceased to be a registered owner of the truck and therefore it has...
Homi B. Munshi Vs. P.G. Shroff and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-11-1989
Reported in: (1989)2GLR645; (1991)IIILLJ469Guj
1. Petitioner, an officer in the Union Bank of India ('Bank' for short), has filed this petition challenging the order dismissing him from service. 2. Petitioner joined the service of the Bank as an officer on April 1, 1955. In 1961 he was promoted as Assistant Accountant. On March 30, 1982 petitioner was promoted to Senior Management Grade IV. Certain serious acts of omission and commission were reported against the petitioner during his tenure as Branch Manager at Kanpith Branch, Surat. Petitioner was, therefore, by order Annexure - 'B' dated March 10, 1984 suspended from service of the Bank pending departmental inquiry. Notice dated March 23, 1984 was issued by the disciplinary authority against the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him for the alleged acts of omission and commission. Petitioner gave reply to this notice on April 11, 1984. The disciplinary authority, however, was not satisfied with this reply and a...
Kaluji Govindji Thakore Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-10-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2403; (1989)2GLR617
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The petitioner has been detained pursuant to order of detention dated February 9, 1989 passed by the detaining authority (Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City) under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short 'PASA').2. It is alleged in the grounds of detention supplied to the petitioner detenu that in Keshavnagar Sabarmati area of Ahmedabad city, the petitioner was storing country liquor and selling the same amongst the members of the public and was thereby indulging in bootlegging activity as defined under the provisions of PASA. The details of cases registered against the petitioner-detenu have been mentioned in the grounds of detention. It is also alleged in the grounds of detention that the petitioner was a 'dangerous person' in as much as he habitually indulged in offences mentioned in Chapters 16 and 17 of Indian Penal Code and his activity as such bootlegger and dangerous person was prejudicial to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »