Gujarat Court October 1990 Judgments
Kishore Kumar and anr. Vs. Rakesh Kumar,
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-30-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Guj95
ORDER1. Rule, Ms. V. P. Shah, the learned counsel for the contesting opponents has waived the service of the Rule.2. In paragraph 14 of the memo of the revision application, the petitioners have firstly prayed for an order under S. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure transferring Special Civil Suit No. 473 of 1990 pending in the Court of Shri A. J. Brahmbhatt, the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Surat to the Court of any other Judge competent to try and decide that suit. In the alternative, the petitioners have prayed that the orders passed below applications Exhs. 5, 7, 8 and 36 in the aforesaid suit by the learned Civil Judge (S.D. at Surat be set aside. However, at the time of hearing of this Civil Revision Application, Mr. D. D. Vyas, for the petitioners fairly conceded that the order passed by the trial Court on Exh. 5 cannot be the subject-matter of this revision petition for that is an order under Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, issuing certain injunctions and such an orde...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Krishna Engineering Works
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-1990
Reported in: (1991)2GLR744; (1999)IIILLJ401Guj
Vaidya, J.1. These two appeals for enhancement of the sentences filed by the State of Gujarat are directed against the judgment and order dated April 6, 1983 rendered in two Criminal Cases No. 55 of 1983 and 56 of 1983 by the learned J.M.F.C., Gandevi, wherein the respondent The Krishna Engineering Works' which came to be prosecuted for the alleged offence under Sections 18 and 22 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short referred to as 'the Act') in respect of the contravention of Rules 22, 26-A, 26-B, 26-D of the Gujarat Minimum Wages Rules, 1961 (for short 'the Rules') pleaded guilty and was accordingly convicted for the same and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40/- and in default to undergo S.I. for two days and eight days respectively in two cases.2. In short, it was the prosecution case that on August 25, 1982, Mr. M.D. Trivedi, Minimum Wages Inspector, Valsad, when in the course of his duty visited and inspected 'The Krishna Engineering Works' at Bilimora of the ownership of Mr. ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Mahavir Prasad Jain
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-1990
Reported in: (1992)1GLR290; (1993)IIILLJ789Guj
Vaidya, J.1. These two appeals for enhancement of sentence are directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 25-9-1981 rendered in Criminal Case Nos. 954 and 955 of 1984, respectively by the learned J.M.F.C., Talaja, wherein one Shri Mahavir Prasad Jain, who came to be prosecuted for the alleged contravention of Sections 29(i)(a) and 29(1)(b) read with Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') read with Rule 60(1) of the Gujarat Factories Rules, 1963 (for short 'the Rules'), on his allegedly pleading guilty, was convicted for the same and sentenced (separately by each of the two orders to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default, S.I. for 20 days.2. Briefly to summarise the prosecution case according to the complainant Mr. Y.N. Mehta,, Factory Inspector, Bhavnager, one Mahavir Prasad Jain, at the relevant time of the inspection was an occupier of a factory, namely, 'Jay Bharat Steel Co.' situated at Plot No. 6, Ship Breaking Yard, Alang. It further appears that for...
Tag this Judgment!Shankerbhai Mathurbhai Patel and anr. Vs. Ramanlal Vrajlal Patel and a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-10-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR387
V.H. Bhairavia, J.1. This Revision Application is preferred by the petitioner-original accused against the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Borsad dated 2-5-1983 on application Exh. 16 and 18 in Cri. Case No. 1985 of 1982. A complaint was filed by the respondent against the present petitioner for an offence punishable under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Borsad. On receiving this complaint, the learned Magistrate ordered to send this complaint for enquiry under Section 202 and sought the report from the police. The offence is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 alleging that the petitioner had used a new trade mark 'Jaswant Chhap Special Telephone Bidi', which trade mark belonged to the complainant alone and it is registered under the Trade Mark Registry in the name of the complainant. The petitioner is also dealing in bidi busine...
Tag this Judgment!Mohmad HusseIn Miya Mohmad Shaikh Vs. Valchand Sukhlal Jani and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-09-1990
Reported in: (1991)2GLR1316
K.J. Shah, J.1. This purports to be an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), and in para 5 of this petition, this is what is prayed:This Hon'ble Court, in exercise of inherent powers, conferred by Section 482 of the Code, be pleased to review its earlier order of conviction, to give opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, and thereafter, be further pleased to pass appropriate order in the matter.2. The petitioner was respondent No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1983. The petitioner is the landlord of the premises in respect of which the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1983 was a tenant. The appellant-tenant filed a complaint against the petitioner-landlord for offences punishable under Sections 403, 406 and 418 of the I.P. Code as also under Section 18 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 'the Rent Act'). Charges under Sections 403 and 406 of the I.P. Code and under Section 18 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Harshaben Vs. Prafulchandra Shantilal Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-1990
Reported in: II(1991)DMC59
S.D. Dave, J.1. This First Appeal has been directed against the Judgment & Decree pronounced by the Ld. Judge, City Civil Court, Court No. 15, Ahmedabad, in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 131 of 1985 granting the decree of divorce in favour of the original applicant husband.2. The present Appellant is the original opponent wife, while the present Respondent is the original applicant husband.3. The original applicant husband Prafulchandra Shantilal Shall had instituted the Hindu Marriage Petition against the original opponent wife Harshaben Shah for obtaining a decree of divorce Under Section 13(1)(a)(ii) of (he Hindu Marriage Act. It is his case that the marriage between the parties had taken place on 28th April, 1980 and Godhra according to Hindu Vedic Rites and that a daughter has been born out of the above said wedlock, who was aged about 31/2 years at the time of filing of the petition. It is the case of the applicant husband that the opponent wife had left the matrimonial home on 18....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gosar Family Trust
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-04-1990
Reported in: (1990)89CTR(Guj)266; [1991]189ITR18(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred to us for our opinion the following two question under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') : '(1) Whether, in law and on facts and having regard to the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 164 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee is entitled to the concessional rate of tax ?' (2) Whether, in law and on facts and in view of the provisions of the trust deed, the trust cannot be subjected to maximum marginal rate of tax ?' 2. By a deed dated October 3, 1981, a private trust known as 'Gosar Family Trust' was created by the settlor, Shri Hirji Pethraj Shah. A sum of Rs. 500 was handed over by the settlor to the trustees for holding it jointly upon trust. The trustees were empowered to invest the amount and authorised to collect the interest and income of investments representing the said sum as well as of any other amounts which may be received by them as provided in...
Tag this Judgment!Kaushikkumar @ Gopaldas Prabhudas Bhatt Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-04-1990
Reported in: (1991)2GLR905
N.B. Soni, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-9-1988 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad, in Sessions Case No. 78 of 1988 holding the appellant guilty under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (N.D.P.S. Act for short) and awarding to him a sentence of 5 years' Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default 6 months' further R.I.2. The appellant (original accused No. 1) and eight other accused were charged in the aforesaid Sessions Case with have committed offences under Sections 17, 18, 20 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the original accused No. 2 was further charged with having committed an offence under Section 25 of the said Act.3. Briefly, the prosecution case was as follows. The Police Sub-Inspector of Dakor City Police Station, on receipt of information that the original accused No. 2-Rabiabibi was dealing in Opium, Ganja and Charas at her residence situated in the compound of Navalsha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›