Gujarat Court April 1990 Judgments
Prashant Pravinbhai Kanabar Vs. the Gujarat University and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Guj23; (1990)2GLR350
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The petitioners in all these petitions are medical students. Some of them have passed Third M.B.B.S. examination; are at present undergoing Internship and they will be seeking admission to post-graduate degree/ diploma medical courses in the academic term this year beginning from March, 1990. They are challenging the Rules Governing Admissions to Post-Graduate Degree & Diploma Medical Courses other than M. C. H. & D. M., at the affiliated Medical Colleges, effective from 1-1-1989, as some of the Rules will certainly and some are likely to affect them adversely in determination of their merit for the purpose of admission to post-graduate medical courses.2. Petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 336/90 are students, at present studying in First M.B.B.S. They are all outsiders, in the sense that they passed their Higher Secondary Certificate Examination or equivalent examination from other States and not from Gujarat. They got admission to First M.B.B.S. course i...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Panubhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2226; (1990)2GLR499
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. These two criminal appeals, one by the State of Gujarat being Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 1988 (Acquittal) in the matter of offences under Sections 302, 323, 326 read with 34 of the I.P.C. against the respondent-accused viz. (i) Panubhai alias Paniya Kolaji; and (ii) Premji Gora; and another by the accused No. 1 only being Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1989 against the impugned order of conviction and sentence under Sections 304, 325 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. are directed against the common judgment and order dated 18-4-1988 rendered in Sessions Case No. 20 of 1988 by the learned City Sessions Judge, IInd Court, Ahmedabad.1.1 The learned Sessions Judge while convicting each of the accused for offences Under Sections 304-II, 325 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. has awarded the sentences as tabulated hereunder:Sr. Name of the Convicted for Substantive Fine In-defaultNo. accused offences sentence Rs. to undergo1. Panubhai Paniya (i)Under Section 304 R.I. for Rs. 25/...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Amitabh Bandhopadhyay Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR127
M.B. Shah, J.1. Rule. Mr. Tripathi, A.G.P., waives service for the respondents.At the request of the learned Advocates for the parties and as the matters are urgent and require immediate disposal, they are heard today.As the identical question of law is involved in both the matters, they are disposed of by a common judgment.2. These two Special Civil Applications are filed by the students who are admitted to post-graduate courses in Medical College in Gujarat on the basis of All India Entrance Test marks obtained by them in the examination held in 1989. It is the say of the petitioner Dr. Amitabh Bandhopadhyay in Special Civil Application No. 811 of 1990 that in the All India Entrance Test Examination he had secured the highest marks in the subject of Medicine and he was at Serial No. 1 in the said list. The petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 1293 of 1990 Dr. Ravi Arora was at Serial No. 2 in the subject of Surgery. It is their grievance that in spite of these facts even thoug...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Luhana Prabhudas Vrajlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-1990
Reported in: (1990)2GLR1300
J.U. Mehta, J.1. The State has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1985 dated 2-5-1987.2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are:3. That on 12-9-1984, the respondent, who is owner of the Matador passed through Bilkha-Visavadar Road. At that time, near Navi Chavand Patia, the Range Forest Officer, Visavadar Range, raided the vehicle with the help of Police party. On search, he found illegal cut Sagi wood. There were in all 40 Sagi wood in the Matador. According to the complaint lodged the said wood was forest produce and therefore, under Section 61A of the Indian Forest Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the offence was registered and inquiry was held and ultimately on 28-11-1985, the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Gir (West), Junagadh confiscated the wood as well as the vehicle used in illegal transport...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat and anr. Vs. R.L. Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-04-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Guj42; (1990)2GLR1163
Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. Notice, Mr. Y. N. Oza, who has filed caveat, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent. The Letters Patent Appeal is taken up for hearing, by consent of both the parties, today.2. The short facts of this case for the purpose of disposal of this Letters Patent Appeals are;The respondent herein appeared in the Gujarat Public Service Commission Examination held in the year 1986 for Gujarat Civil Service Class I/II posts. It is the averment of the respondent that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe, i.e. Dhodia caste and comes from the Union Territory called Dadra and Nagar Haveli. The Public Service Commission, by its letter dated 4th April, 1989, which is subsequent to the respondent writing the examination for the Gujarat Civil Services Class I/II posts, has stated as follows:' xxx xxx xxxSubject: Gujarat Administrative Services Class-I and Gujarat Civil Services Class-I/ II-Examination of June, 1986Sir,As per the Advertisement No. 25/1985 iss...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavnagar Bricks Manufacturing Co. and ors. Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-02-1990
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas676(Guj); (1990)2GLR1150
Vaidya, J. 1. One of the best tests and indices to the overall sense of judicial awareness, discipline, efficiency and a will to justice and that too as expeditiously as possible, lies in the sense of vigilance exhibited by the court in exercising its discretion in the matter of handling and granting adjournments to parties. Frivolous adjournment are the very antithesis of justice. Such adjournments not only waste precious public time, defeat the cause of justice, but at times, they further tend to be harsh punishments to innocent and guileless litigants and witness who, in high hopes, knock at the doors of justice and, ultimately, to return in utter dismay and find themselves stranded and inextricably stuck. 2. This appeal from order, accordingly, represents one of such cases of indiscreet acts of adjournment around which the entire discussion revolves in the following paragraphs of this judgment, which can be an eye-opener to anybody ... 3. Briefly, respondent-plaintiff No. 1, viz., ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rishi Enterprises
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-02-1990
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas271(Guj); (1991)2GLR1213
Shah, J.1. Mr. Raval, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, vehemently submitted that once the company fails to pay the undisputed amount, then this court should admit the petitions and should not adjourn the. According to his submissions, this court has absolutely limited discretion. For that purpose, he has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhusudan Gordhandas and Co. v. Madhu Woollen Industries Pvt. Ltd. [1972] 42 Comp Cas 125. 2. In my view, there is such absolute law. The section itself confers judicial discretion upon the courts. In the present case, it seems that the intention of the petitioners in insisting on admission of these matters is only to coerce the company and extract from it immediately by any means the amount which is payable to the petitioners. There is no such law that a company which is a running company employing about 500 employees who are paid their wages regularly and which is having a business of crores of ...
Tag this Judgment!Vikram Maya Maiya Vs. State of Gujarart and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-02-1990
Reported in: (1991)2GLR1210
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, one Vikram Maya Maiya-the petitioner externee herein has brought under challenge the impugned order of externment dated 5th May, 1989, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Veraval, whereby he was ordered to be externed from the District of Junagadh and other adjoining Districts.2. Briefly, the petitioner at the relevant time was a resident of village Pikhor of Taluka Maliya-Hatina. He was served with an externment notice dated 20th March, 1989, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Veraval, under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, calling upon him to show cause why he should not be externed from Junagadh as well as its adjoining Districts for a period of two years. The said notice contains the following allegations:(a) that it has been alleged against you that you are in habit of beating and administering threats to the people and passers-by, committing thefts, extortion and molesting the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashoksinh Gopalsinh Jadeja and anr. Vs. D.H. Brahmbhatt and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-02-1990
Reported in: (1990)2GLR1010
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioners challenge the postponement of elections of Rajkot Agricultural Produce Market Committee. The election programme was notified on 16-11-1989 by issuing a notice under Rule 10(2) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 and the nomination papers were to be filed on 8-2-1990 and after different stages, the poll was to be held on 20-2-1990 and counting and declaration of result was to take place on 21-2-1990.2. On 5-2-1990, the election officer published notice that under the instructions of the Director of Agricultural Market and Rural Finance, the election programme has been postponed for the time being. The petition was filed on 6-2-1990 and notice was issued to the respondents returnable on 7-2-1990 pre-emptorily and the respondents were directed to state the provision and circumstances under which the impugned decision to cancel the election programme was issued. On 7-2-1990, no affidavit-in-reply was filed and oral submissions were made ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›