Gujarat Court May 1991 Judgments
Kailashkumar Radhakrishnan Kanoria and ors. Vs. State of Gujurat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-07-1991
Reported in: (1991)2GLR933; (1994)IIILLJ428Guj
Dave, J.1. This common judgment shall govern the disposal of these two Criminal Revision Applications arising out of the orders pronounced by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 178 of 1986 below the application at Ex.-6 dated 16.1.1991 ordering the impleadment of the petitioners as the accused in the case and raise a brief but an interesting question as to whether all the directors or the accused-company would be liable for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the I.P.C. on the accusation that they had not deposited the amount under the Provident Fund Scheme.2. The present petitioners happen to be the directors of a Limited Company known as New Gujarat Synthetics Ltd. No. II. The Provident Fund Inspector had filed the complaint before the police on 30.1.1986 saying that the directors of the abovesaid Limited Company had failed to deposit the P.F. amount according to the; rules and regulations and thereby they have committed the offen...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhudas Badaji Pandav Vs. Faridmiya Huseinmiya Kadari and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-07-1991
Reported in: (1991)2GLR876
S.D. Dave J.1. In this Criminal Revision Application the petitioner P.I,S. Prabhudas Pandav, who at all the material times was working as the P.I.S., Mehlav Police Station, challenges the orders pronounced by the learned J.M.F.C., Petlad below application Ex. 33 in Criminal Case No. 1672 of 197(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure is not a condition precedent for the prosecution against him for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 325, 323, 342, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts and circumstances under which the present Criminal Revision Application arises may be noticed thus:One Faidmiya Kadari, a practising Advocate stationed at Nadiad, had filed the above said private complaint against P.S.I. Pandav and other four Police Constables for the alleged commission of the above said offences. The case of the complainant Advocate in brief is that he had filed Special Civil Suit No. 176 of 1981 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior...
Tag this Judgment!Garden Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-03-1991
Reported in: 1991(34)ECC74; 1991LC164(Gujarat); 1992(61)ELT393(Guj)
Ravani, J.1. Since common questions of law and facts arise in these two petitions, at the request and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, both the matters have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment and order. 2. These two petitions are filed by two different mill companies which are engaged in manufacturing man-made fabrics out of synthetic fibres as well as continuous filament yarn. Both the petitioners import man-made yarn as well as continuous filament yarn. The petitioners have private bonded warehouse licenses under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Besides import duty, the petitioners are required to pay additional duty of customs under the provisions of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. This duty is also popularly called countervailing duty. As provided under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the measure of additional duty of customs is equal to the excise duty for the time being leviable on like a...
Tag this Judgment!Paramount Kumkum Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-1991
Reported in: 1995LC490(Gujarat); 1992(58)ELT541(Guj)
ORDER1. Rule. Mr. B. B. Naik, the learned Counsel waives service of Rule. In this application, the disposal of the proceeding pursuant to the show cause notice is under challenge on a very short point that no personal hearing has been given before cancelling the show cause proceedings. As a result, the petitioners have suffered serious prejudice. It has been indicated in the affidavit in reply that, as a matter of fact notice was sent to the petitioners mentioning the date on which show cause proceeding will be taken up for hearing and that some one from the office of the petitioner received the same by putting the signature which will appear from the postal acknowledgement receipt. On inspection of the postal acknowledgement receipt the Officer instructing the counsel for the petitioners has indicated that none of the employees in the office of the petitioners had received the same and as a matter of fact there was no occasion to receive the communication. An affidavit of rejoinder to...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Manubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Guj10; (1992)1GLR223
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. These four petitions raise common questions of facts and law and are being dealt with and disposed of together at the instance of the learned counsel of the parties.2. The petitioners, in all these matters, have sought to challenge the action of the Lokayukta in summoning them to remain present as witnesses along with documents mentioned in the summons on the ground that they cannot be so summoned without being disclosed the identity of the complainant, the public functionaries involved and the nature of allegations made against such public functionaries. The petitioners have also challenged the legislative competence of the State Legislature in enacting 'The Gujarat Likayukta Act, 1986' as also the provisions of Sections 11 read with Sections 2(2), 15, 16 and 18 of the said Act as ultra vires the Constitution. It is also contended that, if the provisions of Section 10(2) of the said Act are so construed as to bar the disclosure of the identity of the complainan...
Tag this Judgment!Natvarlal Pitamberdas Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-1991
Reported in: (1993)1GLR929
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Rule. Mr. R. P. Solanki waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. In the facts of the case, the petition is ordered to be heard today.2. The petitioner is ex-Chairman of Gujarat State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. He has been served, with a summons (wrongly described as order in the petition) dated 8th July, 1989 issued by respondent No. 3 herein, who is the Inquiry Officer appointed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. By this summons, the petitioner is directed to remain present before the Inquiry Officer and answer the questions mentioned in the questionnaire attached to the summons. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the summons and has also prayed for declaration that the provisions of Section 86(3) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') be declared as ultra vires the Constitution of India.3. It is an undisputed position that the petitioner was, in past, the Chairman of the Gujarat St...
Tag this Judgment!Ajanta Exhibitors Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-1991
Reported in: (1992)1GLR136
J.M. Panchal, J.1. A common question, namely, whether remission of, electricity duty payable under the provisions of the Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958, granted by the Government, by a Notification, for a specified period, can be rescinded by subsequent notification even as regards the unexpired part of the period specified in earlier notification, arises for consideration in both these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore we propose to dispose of both the abovereferred petitions by this common judgment.2. The above referred question arises for consideration in the following facts:The petitioner in each petition is a partnership firm registered under the provisions of Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and is carrying on business of taking Cinema films on hire basis, exhibiting the same, taking theatres on rental basis, constructing theatres etc. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1106 of 1980 is the owner of a Theatre called 'Ajanta C...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›