Gujarat Court January 1990 Judgments
Mansukhlal Popatlal Kanakhra Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-30-1990
Reported in: (1990)2GLR1145
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner whose land came to be acquired under notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act by the respondent-State, has made a grievance that the compensation which he has got should be enhanced by paying him 30% solatium and 15% interest as per the provisions of Sections 28 and 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As Amended by Act 68 of 1984.2. These proceedings have a chequered history, and therefore, it would be necessary to give a few introductory facts. The petitioner's land alongwith lands of others were sought to be acquired by issuance of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 4 notification is dated 18-2-1971 Section 6 notification is dated 31-12-1971. The petitioner in compensation proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer claimed compensation by raising his demand pursuant to notice under Section 9. Thereafter, award was passed by the La...
Tag this Judgment!Mafatlal Engineering Ind. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-1990
Reported in: 1990(31)LC322(Gujarat)
1. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of synthetic fibre machinery, textile machinery and component parts thereof. At the relevant time the said products were liable to payment of excise duty under Tariff Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. On 7.8.1979, the Superintendent of Central Excise issued a show cause notice under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, calling upon the Petitioner to show cause why duly of Rs. 2,33,520/- should not be charged and levied from the petitioner on the ground that the same was short levied for the period from 1.4.1978 to 31.5.1979. Thereafter the adjudication proceedings were -before the Assistant Collector who, by his order dated 17.3.1980 confirmed the demand. Against that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The Collector modified the order in so far it confirmed the demand which was time barred and subject to that modification dismis...
Tag this Judgment!Surajmal Kanaiyalal Soni Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-22-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1483; (1990)2GLR923
P.M. Chauhan, J.1. The appellant Suraj-mal Kanaiyalal Soni has challenged the conviction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vadodara for the offence punishable Under Section 18, of the Narcotic Drugs and Psycho-tropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as N.D.P.S. Act) and sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default, rigorous imprisonment for three years, for being in illegal and unauthorised possession of 9 Kgs. 775 gms. opium worth Rs. 19,550/- at 10-00 p.m. on march 7, 1988 at Bagikhana Road, Vadodara, on various factual and legal grounds that the opium was not recovered from the appellant and was recovered from other persons but they were allowed to go and the appellant is falsely implicated and that the various mandatory procedural provisions specified in Chapter V, N.D.P.S. Act are not complied with, which has prejudiced the appellant and has resulted into miscarriage of justice requiring the setting aside of the convicti...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Abdulrasid Ibrahim Mansuri
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-22-1990
Reported in: (1990)2GLR947
P.M. Chauhan, J.1. Can a person, in possession and transporting in an autorickshaw, without any passenger in it, in a public place 105.700 kgs., of Cannabis Sativa (charas), worth Rs. 5,29,000/-, be held to be in unconcious possession or without knowledge of the contents in the packets Were the provisions of Section 42, Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'N.D.P.S. Act') required to be followed or the provisions under Section 43 of the N.D.P.S. Act are applicable in case of seizure in public place Are provisions of Chapter V, N.D.P.S. Act mandatory, the non-compliance of which will vitiate investigation, trial or conviction ipso facto or miscarriage of justice or prejudice to the accused required to be established These are some of the main points requiring consideration in this acquittal appeal preferred by the State against the respondent.2. Additional City Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence held that it is amply made out from t...
Tag this Judgment!Niranjan Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-1990
Reported in: 1990LC721(Gujarat); 1992(61)ELT229(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J. 1. The petitioner-company is having a composite textile mills and is engaged in the business of manufacturing textile goods. During the process of manufacturing cotton fabrics, at the stage when cotton yarn is removed from the cones for the purpose of beaming, there is always some wastage of cotton yarn. Such waste cotton, which is also known as hard-waste, cannot be used for manufacturing the end-product and, therefore, the same is disposed of as waste cotton yarn. In respect of such cotton yarn, the petitioner used to submit classification lists from time to time and one such list was submitted on 26-6-1980. The petitioner had classified the said waste cotton yarn as falling under Tariff Item 18-A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Assistant Collector approved the classification and in view of Notification No. 95/61, dated 1-4-1961, as amended from time to time, permitted clearance of these goods without payment of excise duty. Acco...
Tag this Judgment!Whitco Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-1990
Reported in: 1995(75)ELT61(Guj)
ORDERG.T. Nanavati, J.1. M/s. Whitco Limited - Petitioner No. 1, a company incorporated under the Companies Act (No. 1 of 1956), is engaged in business of manufacturing detergents in the form of powder, cakes and bars. On 29th August 1980, it entered into an agreement with M/s. Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Buyer') for manufacturing and selling detergent in the form of cakes and bars, as may be required by it from time to time and according to specifications and directions given by it. Price was not fixed by the agreement but the same was to be fixed from time to time by mutual agreement. Excise duty, freight, sales-tax and other levies were to be paid by the buyer. On 3-9-1980, the petitioner-company submitted Price List No. 95/80-81 in respect of detergent cakes manufactured by it for the buyer in the proforma meant for determination of value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Vado...
Tag this Judgment!BahauddIn Hasnabhai Chauhan Vs. the Director of Municipalities, Gujara ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Guj81; (1990)2GLR1360
ORDER1. The petitioner, who is Vice President Wadhwan Municipality has challenged the order of the Collector passed under S. 258 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, whereby he has directed the Chief Officer (who had refused to take on record the minutes and proceeding of the meeting of 1lth November, 1989) to take the same on record.2. The meeting was scheduled to be held on 11-11-1989 at 8-00 a.m. There is a dispute and there are rival versions. According to the petitioner, the meeting was adjourned by the President at 7-00 in the morning and the notice to the effect was placed on the notice board on that day; and that was within the power of the President to adjourn the meeting before it was actually convened. The rival version is that the President had lost the majority. He had not remained present and his supporting members have also not remained present and he had also taken the keys of the meeting room. But 15 members out of the total strength of 25 members of the Municipality, ha...
Tag this Judgment!Chandulal Jethalal Jaiswal Vs. the Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-12-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2864; (1990)1GLR599
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The petitioner-detenu has filed this hebeas corpus petition with a prayer that the detention order (Annexure-A to the petition) passed against him by the detaining authority be set aside and that the respondents be directed to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith.2. The short facts of the case can be stated as under:3. The petitioner is detained by the order dated 16-3-1989 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Baroda City which has been passed on his being satisfied that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Baroda City, it is necessary to do so. Said order is passed in exercise of the powers conferred on the detaining authority under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985. The petitioner is ordered to be detained in Special Jail, Bhuj as a Class II detenu as per order (Annex B to the petition). The petitioner is also served with the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›