Gujarat Court March 1990 Judgments
Dr. Prasant M. Bhansali Vs. Gujarat University and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-1990
Reported in: (1990)2GLR1168
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner is a candidate for post-graduate medical admission for July 1989 batch after one year intership. The petitioner is at Serial No. 171 in the common merit list and his choice was M. D. (Medicine) stipendery or non-stipendery. As such seat was not available at the time of first interview, second interview and reshuffling, he has not taken admission to any other branch or subject and he has not given any choice for any other subject.2. 25% of the post-graduate medical seats are reserved for All India candidates as per the scheme evolved under the order of the Supreme Court. It appears that several seats in several States remained vacant in the All India quota and the Supreme Court seems to have passed an order on 5-12-1989 permitting such seats to be filled in by the local candidates. The Director General of Health Services, Medical Examination Cell, New Delhi, informed all the State authorities that the vacant seats for the year 1989 are released with effec...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Coromandal Investment Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-1990
Reported in: [1991]71CompCas470(Guj)
Bhairavia, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment and oorder dated June 12, 1981, passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No. 69 of 1981 whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the respondents-accused of the offences punishable under section 621(1A) of the Companies Act, 1956.2. It is the prosecution case that one Shri R. V. Patel was an employee of Sarabhai and Co. (P.) Ltd. He was also acting as the secretary of the present respondent No. 1-company. It is alleged that a company having a paid-up share capital of more than Rs.. 25 lakhs must have its own secretary as per the provisions of section 383A of the Companies Act, 1956.Therefore, the registrar of Companies filed a complaint against the present respondent- accused No. 1 and its directors respondent-accused Nos. 2 to 4 for viloation of the provisions oof section 383A of the Companies Act which is punishable under section 621(1A) of the Companies Ac...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Rajendra Khodabhai Deshdia and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-13-1990
Reported in: II(1991)ACC89; 1991ACJ638; [1991(63)FLR854]; (1991)1GLR42; (1995)IIILLJ211Guj
1. Bhairavia, J: Is an employee of the State Government, being a Civil servant, not covered by the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923? Even when earning of a workman may increase after he suffers an accident would he be entitled to claim compensation from the employer? These are some of the questions which have arisen in this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 filed by the employer-State of Gujarat. Respondent workmen was serving as forest guard. On May 14, 1984 while on duty he saw a matador vehicle loaded with logs of wood. As part of his duty to safeguard the forest wood he intercepted the matador and tried to detain it. But he could not. Hence he pursued the matador and over reached the same. On being questioned, the inmates of the matador got angry and one of them assaulted the workman and inflicted sword blow on his right hand. He was removed to Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad and was required to undergo treatment for some time. He was ult...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Grace Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd.,
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-09-1990
Reported in: (1990)83CTR(Guj)1; [1990]183ITR591(Guj)
Mankad, Actg. C.J.1. The question which arises for our consideration in these references is whether the subsidy received by an assessee from the Central Government/State Government under the Central Government/ State Government Assistance Scheme for the development of backward areas should be deducted from the cost of its/his assets for the purpose of allowing depreciation, investment allowance and relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short)? 2. A detailed study was undertaken to examine the question as to what measures were required to be taken to ensure balanced development of industries in different regions of the State of Gujarat. This study broadly revealed that while entrepreneurs rapidly accepted business environment in the State, industrial peace, the stable and adequate power position and responsiveness and efficiency of the State administration, these plus points were not found fully adequate and there was need for cash incentives for the balan...
Tag this Judgment!Nanavaty Chemical Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-08-1990
Reported in: 1992(43)LC329(Gujarat)
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The petitioner is manufacturing Sodium Silicate. The petitioner claimed refund of excise duty of Rs. 24,940.22 ps. (Rs. 24,760.41ps. as basic duty plus Rs. 179.81ps. special duty). It was contended by the petitioner that the base period for fixing clearance was year 1975-76 and the petitioner started manufacturing from May, 1977. Therefore the clearance during 1976-77 was nil and hence for the clearance made during May 14,1977 to March 31, 1978, petitioner claimed refund of the amount of extra duty paid on the ground that the petitioner was entitled to claim the benefits of exemption Notification No. 198/76, dated June 16,1976.2. The petitioner preferred the claim for refund on April 2,1979. The said claim has been rejected by the Assistant Collector concerned as per order dated July 26,1979. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid order passed by the Assistant Collector and has claimed that the respondents be directed to pay the amoun...
Tag this Judgment!Kandarpakumar Krishnakumar Dholakia and ors. Vs. Gujarat Public Servic ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-07-1990
Reported in: (1990)2GLR1058
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. In the aforesaid petitions the petitioners are members of the staff working in the subordinate Courts and this Court as also practising Advocates. The petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the results at the Elimination Test held on 30-9-1984 by the Gujarat Public Service Commission, respondent No. 1 for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, in Gujarat Judicial Service Class-II (Junior Branch) and for a further direction that the petitioners be called for interviews to be held for appointment to the said post and also for other incidental and ancillary orders. They have also sought for prayer directing the first respondent to permit rechecking the papers of the petitioners in the Elimination Test held on 30-9-1984 for the post of Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, in the Gujarat Judicial Service Class-II (Junior Branch) for the purpose of ascertaining as to wh...
Tag this Judgment!Jardullakhan Hanifkhan Pathan Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-06-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR493
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The District Magistrate, Panchmahals, on being satisfied that the petitioner is a dangerous person and that his activities have created an atmosphere of fear and terror in Dahod Town, passed an order on 22-8-1989, for detention of the petitioner, with a view to prevent him from carrying on the said activities. That order is challenged in the petition by the detenu himself.2. In the grounds of detention, it is mentioned that on 23-5-1984 the petitioner, alongwith his associates, was involved in commission of an offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian penal Code and his said act had also created an atmosphere of fear and terror at that time. For that incident, an offence was registered against the petitioner and on 13-9-1984 it was compromised at the instance of some good persons. Next incident mentioned is of 30-6-1989. It is alleged that, on that day at about 11-00 O'clock, in Darpan talkies, the petitioner had behaved in a high-handed manner and had ther...
Tag this Judgment!Abidali Usmanali Saiyed Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-06-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR582
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. Because of the careless and callous manner in which the detention order came to be passed against the petitioner, the same will have to be quashed and this petition will have to be allowed.2. The District Magistrate, Kheda, passed an order on 14-9-1989 for detention of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is a bootlegger and a headstrong person and his activities have resulted in creating an atmosphere of fear and terror and feeling of insecurity. In the ground of detention, 17 Criminal Cases which came to be registered against the petitioner are mentioned and it is stated that on careful scrutiny of those complaints, it clearly appears that the petitioner is bootlegger. Thereafter, 10 statements recorded by the police are referred to, which show that the petitioner is carrying on the bootlegger activity and in order to carry on that activity, he has indulged in the acts of violenece also and that has resulted in creation of an atmosphere of terror and f...
Tag this Judgment!Kikabhai Ukabhai Patel and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-02-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Guj12; (1990)2GLR1043
ORDER1. Two petitioners through their power of attorney have filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging notifications under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short). Section 4 notification was dated 22-111982 which was gazetted on 12-5-1983 and there was further gazetted notification on 16-8-1983. It is at annexure E to the petition. By the said notification, lands of the petitioners amongst others were sought to be acquired by the respondent-State of Gujarat as they were likely to be needed for a public purpose i.e. drainage disposal scheme of the respondent Municipal Corporation, This notification was followed by notification under S. 6 dated 7-2-1986. The said notification is at annexure F to the petition. In the said notification under S. 6, it was provided that Government was pleased to direct under sub-section (1) of S. 17 of the Act that the Collector shall, on expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the noti...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Gangaram Vs. Estate Officer, Gujarat Housing Board
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-02-1990
Reported in: (1990)2GLR1006
M.B. Shah, J.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 20-9-1989 passed by the Joint District Judge, Rajkot in an appeal filed under Section 9 of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioner has filed this Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Mr. Shah, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, vehemently submitted as under:(1) Notice under Section 4 of the Act is vague because it is not specifically stated that the petitioner was in possession of a particular room of the specified premises.(2) Eviction order is passed only against the petitioner and not against the original allottee - Prabhakar Badheka and the petitioner is a tenant of the original allottee - Prabhakar Badheka. The order passed against him is collusive.(3) In December, 1988 the premises ceased to be a public premises. As per the scheme of hire purchase the p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›