Gujarat Court October 1991 Judgments
Mukundsing Yadav Vs. Major Jogendrasing Z. Yadav and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-30-1991
Reported in: (1994)1GLR708
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Joint District Judge, at Rajkot, in Civil Appeal No. 170 of 1971, on 20-12-1982, by invoking the aids of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Material facts giving rise to the present petition, may, shortly be stated, so as to appreciate the merits of the petition and challenge against it.3. Respondent No. 1 herein was allotted Block No. 220 of the flat constructed, on Kalavad Road, at Rajkot, under the M.I.G. scheme of the Gujarat Housing Board ('GHB' for short), on 1-4-1971. Respondent No. 1 made an application, on 24-5-1976, to the Estate Manager of GHB and requested for grant of permission to lease the aforesaid premises to the petitioner on the ground of his transfer. Pursuant to that request, the GHB granted permission to lease the aforesaid premises for a period of one year by letter dated 3-7-1976.4. The Estate Manager of the G.H.B. had thereafter issued a notice under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Thakarda Hamirji Gajuji Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-29-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3966
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused against the judgment and order dated 31-12-1983 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 108/83 whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 304, Part II of the I.P. Code and convicting him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4 years. However, by the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge had acquitted appellant accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P. Code.2. The prosecution case in brief is that complainant Kanaji Chelaji is younger brother of deceased Pupaji Chelaji. Both brothers are staying separately. A day before the day of incident, Pupaji had gone to Patan and returned back at about 5.00 p.m. with accused Thakarda Ramirji Gaguji. Deceased introduced accused to the complainant. Accused slept in the house of Rupaji on that night. On the day of incident, i.e. 11-8-83 accused and Rupaji had gone...
Tag this Judgment!G.H. Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-25-1991
Reported in: 1997(94)ELT483(Guj)
Ravani, J. 1. When there is no provision for payment of interest on the amount of refund of excise duty, can the petitioner claim interest on such amount If such relief is granted, would it not amount to doing effective injustice to the society and inflicting injury upon the society These are some of the questions which have arisen in this petition. The petitioner is a partnership firm. During the years 1980 to 1986 it manufactured stainless patta-patti. The department classified the goods manufactured by the petitioner as 'strip' and not as ' patta-patti'. On account of this dispute the petitioner's goods were classified under Tariff Item No. 26AA(iii) up to 1-8-1983. Thereafter the same was classified in Tariff Item No. 25(12)(ic) up to 1-3-1986. After 1-3-1986 the goods were classified under chapter Heading No. 72.11. According to the petitioner, the article manufactured by it was 'patta-patti' and therefore it was falling within Tariff Item No. 26AA(iA) or 25(8). (since the descrip...
Tag this Judgment!Kaira Dist. Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-23-1991
Reported in: (1992)105CTR(Guj)0301A
ORDERBY THE COURT :'Prayers (a) and (b) of paragraph 4 granted. Misc. Civil Application (Annexure - Ed.) accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs.'AnnexureMOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH THAT1. The above reference was disposed of by the Bench consisting of Honble Mr. Justice R. C. Mankad and Honble Mr. Justice R. K. Abhichandani by their judgment dt. 14th June, 1991, a copy whereof is annexed herewith marked Exhibit-A for ready reference. The question Nos. 2, 3 and 5 came to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee, but by mistake came to be stated as 'against the assessee'. This is a pure typographical mistake and requires to be corrected. When the matter was put for disposal before the Tribunal under s. 260(1) the Tribunal had also similar difficulty and the Asstt. Registrar addressed a letter to the applicant to do the needful. A copy of this letter incorporating the order of the Tribunal is annexed herewith marked Exhibit-B.2. Similarly, an error has a...
Tag this Judgment!Raojibhai Motibhat @ Mathurbhai Thakor Vs. Shantaben Kalidas Chauhan H ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-23-1991
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1455
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Leave to amend.In these two petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, common questions are involved and both these petitions are directed against the common judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, in Revision Applications Nos. 556 of 1982 and 557 of 1982, on 26-8-1985. Therefore, with the consent of the Learned Counsels appearing for the parties, both these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, Special Civil Application No. 6149 of 1985 is hereinafter referred to as the 'first petition' and Special Civil Application No. 6163 of 1985 is hereinafter referred to the 'second petition'.2. In order to appreciate the merits of these two petitions, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant facts giving rise to the present petitions.3. Respondent No. 2 in the first petition, Chandrashanker Pursottam Joshi, was the original owner of an agricultural property bearing Revenue Survey No. 621/1 (paiki)...
Tag this Judgment!Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-22-1991
Reported in: 1993LC680(Gujarat); 1993(63)ELT616(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. Mafatlal Industries Limited, petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner'), imported 525 M.Ts. of 'Mono Ethylene Glycol' in March, 1990. The consignment arrived at Kandla Port in a vessel named 'm.v. BOW FALCON'. South India Corporation (Agencies) Limited, shipping agent of the vessel, filed a declaration on 12-3-1990 that the vessel was expected to arrive to Kandla on 15-3-1990. On 13-3-1990, the Agent also submitted to the Assistant Collector an Import Manifest. An application for Entry Inwards was also given on that day. As the vessel did not arrive on 15-3-1990, as expected, a fresh declaration was filed, mentioning therein that the vessel was expected to arrive at Kandla Port on 17-3-1990. On 16-3-1990, the petitioner filed a bill of entry for home consumption in respect of the said goods. The vessel actually arrived on 17-3-1990 and berthed at Inner Anchorage of 19-3-1990 and an Arrival Report to that effect was given to the Customs House, at ...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Manubhai Alias Narendrakumar Gandabhai Patel Vs. the State of Gu ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-22-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2166
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. Manilal Ganeshbhai Patel filed a complaint before the learned J.M.F.C., Mehsana against 7 accused persons for the offences punishable Under Sections 302, 201, 120-B and 114, IPC. It is alleged that on 2-9-88 Puriben, wife of accused Vishnubhai was burnt by the accused. The Id. Magistrate by his order dt. 12-9-88 ordered to hold inquiry Under Section 202 of. Cr. P.C. After recording necessary evidence, the Id. Magistrate found a primasfacie case against the accused, therefore, ordered to issue non-bailable warrant against the accused for the offences punishable Under Sections 302, 498A and 34, IPC.2. All the seven accused have challenged the impugned order passed by the Id. Magistrate by filing Cri. Revn. Application No. 67/ 91 which was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mehsana by his impugned judgment and order dt. 28-8-91. The above order passed by the Id. Magistrate confirmed in Cri Revn. Appln. by the Id. Addl. Sessions Judge has been challenged ...
Tag this Judgment!D.J. Works Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-16-1991
Reported in: (1992)102CTR(Guj)2; [1992]195ITR227(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, Actg. C.J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business at Ahmedabad. In the assessment year 1983-84, the assessing Officer computed the petitioner's total income at Rs. 6,56,536 by an assessment order dated February 9, 1987. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) ('the Commissioner' for short), however, granted a relief of Rs. 59,668 reducing the total income to Rs. 5,96,868. The assessing Officer gave effect to the appellate order on October 4, 1988, and issued a refund order for Rs. 58,682. The assessing Officer had refused registration of the petitioner firm at the time of original assessment but the appellate order granted continuance of registration. In the assessment year 1984-85, the petitioner was assessed on a total income of Rs. 5,21,497 by the Assessing Officer by his order dated March 27, 1987. The Assessing Officer had refused registration but the appellate authority, however, continued the registrati...
Tag this Judgment!Mahmedalam Abdul Latif Vohra and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-16-1991
Reported in: (1992)1GLR685
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioners are the original accused and they are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate taking cognizance of the complaint and granting application Ex. 4 for accepting the explanation regarding the delay in filing the complaint under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The allegations in the complaint are that the two accused have been posing themselves as Medical Practitioners and practising allopathy medicine at village Nandasana showing medical degrees which are bogus and showing that they are Physician & Surgeon and thereby, they are committing offence punishable under Sections 30, 32, 33 and 34 of the Gujarat Medical Practitioners Act. The accused gave an application Ex. 4 that the complaint was beyond time as the charge-sheet was filed after 17 months of the registration of the offence on 3rd June, 1984. By Ex. 11, the prosecution explained delay and prayed for condoning delay. The learned Magistrate has condoned the delay a...
Tag this Judgment!Dinaben Vinaykumar Shah Vs. Surat Municipal Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-16-1991
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1436
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has questioned the termination order from the service passed by the Commissioner, Surat Municipal Corporation on 30-11-1989, as per Annexure 'B' by invoking the aids of the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. A conspectus of the material facts leading to the rise of the present petition, may be narrated, so as to appreciate the merits of this petition and the challenge against it. The petitioner was selected for the post of Laboratory Technician by the respondent-Corporation. She was appointed on the said post by virtue of an order dated 8-3-1989, as Laboratory Technician, in the Malaria Department of the respondent-Corporation, in the pay-scale of Rs. 500-900. She was appointed on a temporary basis on a permanent clear vacancy.The respondent-Corporation terminated the services of the petitioner, on 30-11-1989. The petitioner has inter alia contended that the impugned termination order is arbitrary, discriminatory,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »