Gujarat Court June 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.
Gulabbhai Budhabhai Patel Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-12-1990
Reported in: (1990)2GLR1288
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioner who is a detenu under the provisions of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has brought in challenge the order of his detention on diverse grounds.2. The order of detention, Annexure 'A' is dated 1-1-1990. It is passed by the District Magistrate, Surat. It recites that the detaining authority being satisfied about the need to preventively detaining the detenu with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner which would prejudice the maintenance of stock of kerosene which is an essential commodity, the order was required to be passed against him. This order is supported by the grounds of even date, which are at Annexure 'C' and which were supplied to the detenu when he was taken in detention pursuant to the impugned order. The grounds of detention amongst others, recite that an information was received by the District Supply Officer on 12-10-1989 f...
Arvind Balashanker Joshi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-11-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2241; (1990)2GLR1346
ORDERV.H. Bhairavia, J.1. On being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Addl. City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad delivered on 19-10-1981 in Criminal Appeal No. 178/80 upholding the order of conviction for the offences punishable Under Sections 409, 420, 468 & 471 of the I.P.C. passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 4066/80 dated 18-7-1980, the petitioner accused has challenged the impugned conviction order in this criminal revision application.2. According to the prosecution, two accused namely Shri Arvind Balshankar Joshi Accused No. 1 and Shri Jayantilal Ambalal Trivedi Accused No. 2 were charge-sheeted and prosecuted in the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad for the offences alleged to have been committed Under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 466, 468 and 471 of the I.P. Code. On appreciation of the prosecution evidence, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the original accused No. 2 Shri Jayantilal Ambalal Trive...
Gujarat Pollution Control Board Vs. Indian Chemicals Manufacturer and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-11-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1024; (1990)2GLR590
ORDERJ.U. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 4th Court, Baroda below Ex. 10 as well as Ex. 1 in Criminal Case No. 377 of 1988.2. The facts of the case are that on behalf of the petitioner-Board, the Environmental Engineer filed a complaint for offences under Sections 25, 26 punishable under Section 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') against the respondents in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C., 4th Court, Baroda.3. The case of the prosecution was that accused No. 1 is a partnership concern in the name and style of Indian Chemicals Manufacturer, while accused Nos. 2 and 3 are partners therein. According to the complaint, the accused are running their chemical factory at G.I.D.C. Estate in Nandesari, that the said factory does not treat its waste-water or trade effluent as p...
Sardarkhan Niwazkhan Pathan Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-07-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR173
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. Two Material Questions arising for our consideration in this Misc. Criminal Application, are:Firstly 'Whether pending trial before the Court, any accused involved in a serious offence and already released on bail, can as a matter of his right, be permitted to leave the jurisdiction of me Court and a Country even for a limited period to go abroad on any justifiable ground?'And Secondly 'Whenever be faced with such sort of questions, what ought to be the advisable guiding considerations to be kept in view by the Court on the basis of which it is expected to exercise its judicial discretion to meet with the situation?'2. Few relevant facts necessary to appreciate and answer the aforesaid two questions are: that one Sardarkhan Niwazkhan Pathan, the accused herein was one of 23 accused persons who came to be arrested in connection with C.R. No. 1-161 of 1989, registered at Chaklashi Police Station for having committed offences under Sections 307, 323, 324, 326, 147,148,149...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›