Gujarat Court November 1990 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.
State of Gujarat Vs. Ramanbhai R. Pandya
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-09-1990
Reported in: (1993)1GLR881
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. 'Whether the discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate under Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in acquitting the accused alleged to have committed the offences under the relevant provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 and the Rules made thereunder on the ground of the complainant remaining absent when the cases were called out, is illegal, erroneous and unjust calling for any interferance by this Court ?' (2) 'How indeed this discretion of acquitting the accused under Section 256 of the Code, particularly with reference to any of the social beneficial pieces of the Legislation is required to be exercised so as to prevent patent miscarriage of justice ?' These two are the leading questions arising for consideration in group of the present four acquittal appeals.2. To state few relevant facts briefly, as far as they are necessary to decide the questions raised above, it may be stated that Mr. L.V. Jaradi, Factory Inspector, Vododra, when on 29-4-1987,...
Khimji Siddik Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-09-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR345
R.A. Mehta, J.1. In all these petitions filed by different prisoners, a grievance is made regarding refusal of furlough due to them on the ground mat their conduct is not satisfactory, in view of the jail punishment imposed on each of them for jail offence. In most of the cases, the jail offence is of overstay after the expiry of the period of parole/furlough, for which punishment by way of cut in remission has been imposed. In other cases, for omer jail offences, the punishment of cut in remission is imposed.According to the respondents, under Rule 4(6) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, furlough can be refused to the prisoners whose conduct is not satisfactory, and under Rule 4(10) of the said Rules, furlough can be refused to the prisoners who have defaulted in any way un surrendering themselves at the appropriate time after release on parole or furlough. The respondent-authorities have relied upon the judgment of this Court in Special Criminal Application No. ...
The Surat Textile Market Co-operative Shops and Warehouses Society Ltd ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-08-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Guj70
ORDER1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 18th October 1979 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Surat in Regular Civil Appeal No. 283 of 1977 dismissing the appeal confirming the order passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Surat in Municipal Assessment Appeal No. 13 of 1975 dated 26th August 1977 upholding the action of the respondent Municipal Corporation by which the respondent had added an amount of Rs. 5508/- in the annual letting value of the premises in respect of charges recovered by the petitioner for use of a direct lift for access to the revolving restaurant on the 14th floor of the premises2. The petitioner constructed a textile market building on the land taken on lease from the respondent-Corporation. The shops constructed by the petitioner were allotted to various persons as member tenants of the petitioner-Society. In this huge complex 13 lifts were installed and one of such lifts was exclusively reserved for use of persons who wanted to...
Hyderkhan Lalkhan Pathan Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-07-1990
Reported in: (1992)1GLR61
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner-Prisoner challenges the order of punishment imposed by respondent No. 3-Superintendent of Sabarmati Central Jail and confirmed by Inspector General of Prisons. The petitioner had absconded and was apprehended by Police after 799 days and he thereby committed prison offence.2. The petitioner was involved in a murder case in 1974 and was arrested on 5-8-1974. He was tried and convicted by the Sessions Court, Bombay and was awarded death sentence subject to the confirmation by High Court. That judgment was pronounced on 16-10-1975. The High Court of Bombay confirmed the conviction, but awarded the sentence of life imprisonment. Thereafter on 15-4-1977, the petitioner was transferred from Central Jail, Yeravada (Maharashtra) to Sabarmati Central Jail in Gujarat.3. On 8-4-1985, the petitioner was released on parole for seven days and he overstayed by 116 days unauthorisedly and surrendered on 10-8-1985.4. The petitioner was thereafter released by the High Cou...
Kadarbhai Pirubhai Shaikh Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-07-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR341
R.A. Mehta, J.1. Rule. Mr. Chapaneri, A.P.P. waives service.2. The petitioner has submitted that he was arrested on July 8, 1978 for an offence under Section 302 I.P. Code, and he was convicted for the same on January 30, 1979 and was awarded life imprisonment. He has submitted that under Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which has come into force on 18-12-1978, he is deemed to have completed 14 years of imprisonment including remissions from the date of his arrest and, therefore, he is entitled to be released having completed the period of sentence.3. (Section 433A of the Criminal Procedure Code come into force on 18-2-1978. Section 433A of the Cr. P. Code provides that where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence, such person shall not be released from jail unless he had served at least 14 years of imprisonment. In the case of Maru Ram v. Union of India AIR 1980 SC 2147, and it was held that every person who has been conv...
Somnath Ramchandra Verma Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-07-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR507
J.U. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner who is the detenu has challenged the order of detention, dated 7-9-1990 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. The order is annexed at Annexure 'A'.2. It is, inter alia, alleged in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is involved in 9 Criminal Cases under Chapter 16. It is also alleged that the petitioner threatens people with dire consequences at the point of weapons and thus terror is prevailing amongst the peace-loving citizens of the area of Naroda of Ahmedabad City and that the petitioner has become an obstruction to the maintenance of public order and, therefore, an order of detention is passed against him.3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that at the time of making the proposal by the sponsoring authority to the detaining authority, the material documents, viz., the bail applications filed by the detenu for releasing him on ba...
Koli Nagjibhai Varjan Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-06-1990
Reported in: (1992)1GLR14
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 21-7-1979 passed by the Government under Section 35 of the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of the Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') confirming the order of the Deputy Collector, Radhanpur passed on 8th January, 1979 in Consolidation Case No. 12 of 1978 by which he imposed a fine of Rs. 50 on the owners of the land for having effected a void transfer holding that the transfer was in violation of Section 31(b) of the said Act.2. According to the petitioner a portion of Survey No. 46 of village Mitha was sold to the petitioner by deceased Julkhan orally in 1958-59 and by a 'simple' writing in 1964. The Deputy Collector, Radhanpur initiated inquiry under Section 9 of the said Act and held that the transfer was invalid. An appeal was filed being Appeal No. 180 of 1977 against that order before the Government and the Special Secretary by his order dated 18th April, 1978 allowed...
Pokhrajbhai Sohanbhai Chandel Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-06-1990
Reported in: (1991)2GLR753
J.U. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner-detenu has challenged the legality and validity of the order of detention, dated 7-9-1990 passed by the District Magistrate, Surat, under the provisions of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.2. The petitioner is a licence-holder of a Fair Price Shop and is detained on 9-9-1990 in pursuance of the order of detention dated 7-9-1990, passed by the District Magistrate, Surat, as aforesaid. The allegations are that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of supply of essential commodities. It is alleged in the grounds of detention that the petitioner sold the quota of Wheat of Fair Price Shop in the open market and the same is sold to a Flour Mills, viz. Dilip Enterprise, Navsari on higher rates.3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that it is imperative that the detaining authority must serve the grounds of detention which include also all the relevant documen...
Mulchandbhai Shobhrajmal Ganvani Vs. the Secretary to Government of Gu ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-06-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR421
J.U. Mehta, J.1. The present petitioner who is the detenu has challenged the order of detention, dated 28-8-1990 passed by respondent No. 1 under the provisions of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supply of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. The order of detention is annexed at Annexure 'A' to the petitioner. The grounds on which the order of detention is passed are annexed at Annexure 'B'.2. The only point raised on behalf of the petitioner is that in the present case, the detaining authority, while supplying the documents along with the ground of detention, supplied illegible copies of the relevant documents which affected the right of the detenu for making an effective representation and thus resulted in the infringement of the right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and, therefore, the order of detention be quashed and set aside. The learned Advocate for the petitioner, invited our tension to page 1 of the compilation supplied to the detenu, whi...
Mava Arjan Parmar Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-06-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR481
J.U. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner who is the detenu has challenged the order of detention, dated 13-9-1990 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. The order is annexed at Annexure 'A' to the petition. The petitioner was supplied with the grounds of detention on 13-9-1990 along with documents.2. It is alleged in the grounds of detention that the Commissioner of Police was satisfied that the petitioner is a bootlegger and his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedabad City. He was also satisfied that with a view to preventing him from carrying on the said prejudicial activities, it was necessary to pass an order of detention. In the grounds of detention, it is alleged that three cases under the Prohibition Act registered in Kagdapith Police Station and the statements of witnesses relating to the incidents disclosed that as a result of the bootlegging...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »