Gujarat Court April 1990 Judgments
P.M. Boricha Vs. Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-30-1990
Reported in: (1990)2GLR1186; [1991]188ITR761(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J.1. The petitioner who is the Regional Secretary of the Food Corporation of India Employees Union has filed this petition wherein he has prayed that respondent No. 1 - Senior Regional manager, Food Corporation of India, be directed not to deduct profession tax from the arrears of salary which are paid to the employees on the basis of pay revision and revision of dearness allowance for the period commencing from August 1, 1983, to July 31, 1987, in pursuance of the settlement dated march 22, 1989. The arrears of salary and dearness allowance are required to be paid from August, 1983, to March 1989. 2. Mr. Raval, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, vehemently submitted that the Gujarat State Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1976, nowhere provides for deduction of profession tax on arrears of salary which are to be paid in a lump sum and not on a regular basis. For this purpose, he relies upon section 2(g) of the Act which reads as ...
Tag this Judgment!Attarhusen Badamia Husseni Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-30-1990
Reported in: (1990)2GLR1291
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the order passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing Special Civil Application No. 3233 of 1989. In Special Civil Application No. 3233 of 1989, the appellant herein has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for quashing and setting aside the Resolution dated 7th March, 1989 and the Circular dated 31st March, 1989, which were annexed as Annexures 'A' and 'B' to the Special Civil Application. The learned single Judge of our High Court, after referring to these Resolution and Circular dated 7th March, 1989 and 31st March, 1989 respectively and also Sections 24 and 54 of the Gujarat (Bombay) Primary Education Act, 1947 and also referring to Section 131 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act and Schedule III Part II Sub-clauses (h) and (i), came to the conclusion that the constitution of the Advisory Committee for advising on the question of transfers are within the powers of the Government and as su...
Tag this Judgment!Hirabhai Nanubhai Desai Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-26-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC335; (1990)2GLR1265
ORDERNotice under Order 21 Rule 34 is served, Notice under Order 21 Rule 66 Is also served. No objection has been filed by other tide. Hence, attached property to be told Did Darkhast is ordered to be sent to C.T.A. for further proceeding according to taw. 4-11-1988. Sd/- R.P. DhoIakia, M.A.C.T. (iv)(A).3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order, the petitioner, who happens to be one of the two judgment-debtors, has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.4. Mr. Ashok Padiya, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, while challenging the impugned order has raised two contentions, referred to in the first paragraph of this judgment. In order to make good his submissions, Mr. Padiya first of an took us to the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made thereunder as far as they are relevant to decide the controversy in the present case. Incidentally, It may be mentioned that of late In th...
Tag this Judgment!Hirabhai Nanubhai Desai Vs. the State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-26-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ561; AIR1991Guj1; (1990)2GLR549
ORDER'Notice under 0. 2 1, R. 54 is served. Notice under 0. 2 1, R. 66 is also served. No objection has been filed by other side. Hence, attached property to be sold and Darkhast is ordered to be sent to C.T.A. for further proceeding acrding to law.'4-11-1988.Sd/- R. P. Dholakia,M.A.C.T. (IV) (A).3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order, the petitioner who happens to be one of the two judgment-debtors has filed the present petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.4. Mr. Ashok Padiya, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, while challenging the impugned order, has raised two contentions referred to in the first paragraph of this judgment. In order to make good his submissions, Mr. Padiya first of all took us to the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made there under as far as they are relevant to decide the controversy in the present case. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that of late in the year 1988...
Tag this Judgment!Pak Products Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-25-1990
Reported in: 1995(76)ELT32(Guj); (1990)2GLR1237
Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. Mr. Dave, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, wants permission of this Court to delete respondent No. 2 from the array of parties. Permission granted. Respondent No. 2 is deleted from the array of parties. 2. Rule. Mr. B. B. Naik, learned Counsel, appears for respondents Nos. 1 and 3 and waives service of rule. 3. Learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties herein have no objection for taking up this matter today for final hearing. 4. The main contention of the petitioner is that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has not given opportunity to the petitioner to appear and represent its case for having the deposit dispensed with. It is further contended that cyclostyled orders are being passed, both at the interlocutory stage and also at the final stage, without applying mind regarding the genuineness of the Contentions raised by the party concerned for the purpose of dispensing with the deposit. Section 35F of the Central Excises and Sal...
Tag this Judgment!Maneklal Karsandas Davda Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-25-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR57
J.U. Mehta, J.1. The present petitioner has preferred this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dt. 7-8-1987 delivered in Criminal Revision Application No. 56 of 1985 by the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Surendranagar and in turn to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 22-7-1985 delivered in Criminal Application No. 1 of 1985 by the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vadhavan Sub-Division, Surendranagar, at Annexures 'B' and 'A' respectively.2. The facts of the present case are that: One Rameshchandra Chhotalal Thakkar submitted an application on 10-10-1984 to the District Magistrate, Surendranagar stating therein that the petitioner is running the Industry of 'Kankoo' in his residential house which shares the common wall of his residential premises. According to the complainant...
Tag this Judgment!Khetshi Meghji Charla Vs. Gala Nanji Khetsi and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-20-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR12
J.U. Mehta, J.1. In both these applications, there is a common question of law and, therefore, common order is passed.The petitioners in both the matters have approached this Court against the issuance of the process by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhachau and for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kutch at Bhuj dismissing the Revision Application filed by the accused. The process was issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhachau on the complaints filed in his Court under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').2. In Criminal Case No. 280 of 1985, process was issued against the Petioner and eleven others on the institution of the private complaint filed by the first respondent. The allegations made in the complaint were that the accused in the case had passed a resolution on 10-5-1984 excommunicating the complainant and thus committed...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad Military and Rifle Training Association and ors. Vs. Harsidh ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR26
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The respondent-original plaintiff filed a suit for injunction restraining the appellant-Association from holding the Annual General Meeting of the Association on Saturday, 7th April, 1990 at 5-00 p.m. pursuant to the notice and not to transact any business as mentioned in the agenda of the said meeting annexed to the notice. The said notice of Annual General Meeting to be held on 7th April, 1990 at 5-00 p.m. was for the following agenda items.(1) Approval of the minutes of the last meeting.(2) To consider the audited accounts and annual report for the year ending on 31st March, 1989.(3) To elect members of me governing body of the Association in place of six retiring members (one of them was the respondent-plaintiff). There was also a note that if polling is necessary, the same would be held on Saturday (Sunday), 8th April, 1990 between 9-00 a.m. to 5-00 p.m.(4) To appoint auditors for the year 1989-90 and to fix their remuneration.(5) To consider such other material w...
Tag this Judgment!Laduba Vs. Balvantsing Bhimsing Rana and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-1990
Reported in: II(1991)DMC238; (1991)1GLR131
Bhairavia, J.1. These petitions under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the petitioner-wife challenging the common judgment and order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharuch on 19 10-1985 in Cri. Rev. Application No. 75 of 1984 and Cri. Rev. Application No. 63 of 1984 quashing and setting aside the order of maintenance passed under Section 125 of the Cri. Pro. Code by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) 3rd Court Bharuch on 30 3-1984 in Cri. Misc. Appl. No. 118 of 1982 as also dismissing the Cri. Rev. Application No. 63 of 1984 filed by the petitioner-wife for enhancement of maintenance amount awarded by the learned Magistrate in Cri Misc. Application No. 118 of 1982. 2. The case of the petitioner-wife is that her marriage took place with the respondent husband about 30 years back as per the rites and rituals of their community. She stayed with the respondent-husband for about five years and out of their wedlock, she gave birth of one female child named Ra...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Babuji Alias Mulsing Dhudaji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-13-1990
Reported in: (1990)2GLR1325
J.U. Mehta, J.1. Rule. Mr. K.B. Pujara waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent.2. This application is filed under Section 391 of Cri. Pro. Code on behalf of the State to issue summons to Dr. Manoj A. Sanghvi to come with case papers of deceased Leelaben who was treated in the V.S. Hospital, Ahmedabad.3. The facts of the case are as under:The deceased Bai Leela, wife of the accused was residing with the accused in Viramgam town. As per the prosecution, the accused was in the habit of consuming liquor and he had no other activity and hence quarrels often took place between the accused and deceased Leela. On 14-3-1984 at about 9 p.m., the accused came to his house after consuming liquor and quarreled with his wife and during this quarrel, the accused sprinkled kerosene on Bai Leela in the kitchen and set fire her by a match-stick. On hearing the shouts and cries of Leela, Lalsinh Ranaji and other neighbours residing nearby came. The neighbours tried to extinguish the fire by me...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »