Gujarat Court September 1991 Judgments
Muljibhai Mafatlal Baraiya Vs. Director of Medical Education and Resea ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-26-1991
Reported in: (1993)1GLR629
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of dismissal order passed against him by the Dean of Government Dental College & Hospital, Ahmedabad, dated 29-11-1975, by invoking the aids of the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.2. A resume of the material facts leading to the rise of the present petition, may be stated, at this juncture.3. The petitioner was working as a Nayak (Head Peon), at the Government Dental College & Hospital, at Ahmedabad, when departmental inquiry was initiated against him by the Dean of the aforesaid College. A charge-sheet was served on the petitioner, on 14-8-1975. The substance of the charge-sheet was that:(1) He behaved in an indecent manner with Class IV Female Employees of the Dental College and talks irresponsibly to the said female employees with bad intention.(2) The appellant instigates the Class IV employees of the Institution to behave against discipline and instigates them against the Head of t...
Tag this Judgment!Arvindbhai Narsinhbhai Patel Vs. Shardabehn Amarsingh Thakore and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-26-1991
Reported in: 1(1994)ACC636
S.D. Dave, J.1. This common judgment shall govern the disposal of these two First Appeals arising out of the award pronounced by the learned M.A.C.T No. 1, Kheda at Nadiad, in M.A.C. Application No. 59 of 1979 dated 5.12.1979, awarding the total compensation in a sum of Rs. 23,000/- to the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Amarsing Thakore. The First Appeal No. 651 of 1980 has been filed by the appellant Arvindbhai Patel, who happens to be the owner of the tractor and the trolley involved in the accident. The First Appeal No. 161 of 1981 has been filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Amarsing Thakore, who were the original claimants.2. The facts and circumstances under which the present two appeals arise may be noticed thus:Tractor No. GTM 7671 with the trailer No. GTG 5707 attached with it was passing from over the road between Fagwel and Anand and that the abovesaid vehicles had reached near village Pansora on Heranj-Chunel Road. At that time it a...
Tag this Judgment!Halar Maritime Agencies Vs. Gujarat Maritime Board and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-26-1991
Reported in: (1992)2GLR819
S.D. Shah, J.1. In this matter after issuance of notice by this Court respondent have appeared and filed their respective counter-affidavits. It was agreed by the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the respondents that the matter should be finally heard and decided, and accordingly the matter was heard on 20th September, 1991, 24th, 25th and 26th September, 1991 at length and since the matter is finally heard and is now being disposed of by this judgment following formal order is requitted to be passed:2. Rule. Learned Advocate for the respondents waive service of rule, with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties matter is finally heard on the aforesaid dates.3. The petitioner is a proprietory concern carrying on business of Stevedoring and clearing agent at Bedi Port. It is challenging in this petition the action of the Gujarat Maritime Board in appointing landing and shipping contractor for the purpose of loading and unloading the goods at Bedi Port, and in furthe...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Jagdishchandra Mistry and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-1991
Reported in: (1992)1GLR3
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Mr. Saiyed submitted that in this case, F.I.R. was lodged after two days of the alleged incident of kidnapping and abducting minor child 'Rocky', but no explanation is forthcoming from the complainant for such an inordinate delay. Therefore, the petitioners should be released on bail.It is true that the F.I.R. is lodged after more than 48 hours of the incident and no explanation is given in the complaint for lodging it late by Rekhaben the mother of minor child Rocky. But, that itself would not be a ground for releasing the present petitioners on bail at this stage. The explanation for lodging F.I.R. late could be given by the complainant only at the time of recording her evidence during trial. In this case, the fact remained that a minor son of the complainant was kidnapped on 23rd. One can imagine the state of mind of the parents whose minor son is kidnapped, they will be under trauma. Before rushing to the Police, such persons would try to find out the child by an...
Tag this Judgment!Clemant Chhotalal Cristian Vs. Parshottam Savjibhai Parmar and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-1991
Reported in: (1992)1GLR434
J.U. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner who is the original accused in Criminal Case No. 318 of 1984 has approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 28-12-1984 passed by the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad and also the judgment and order of conviction confirmed in Appeal No. 15 of 1985 by the Court of the learned Addl. City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad on 31-12-1985.2. The short facts of the case are that the Food Inspector of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation visited the shop of the accused on 29-9-1983 at 9-15 a.m., which was run in the name and style of 'Samson General Stores'. The Food Inspector was accompanied by one peon and in the presence of the Panchas, the ground-nut oil weighing 400 grams from the said shop was purchased for the purpose of analysis. The price was paid for the said oil purchased. The oil was divided into three bottles and the bottles were sealed as required under the provisions of law...
Tag this Judgment!Gunvantray Chhotalal Bhatt Vs. Mohmand Kunjumal and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2043; (1992)2GLR929
V.H. Bhairavia, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant original complainant against the judgment and order dated 22-6-1982 passed by the learned Addl. City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 40/82 whereby the learned Addl. City Sessions Judge allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 accused herein and quashed and set aside the judgment and order dated 27-1-1982 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 6 at Ahmedabad in summary Case No. 67/80 and acquitted the respondent No. 1 accused for the offence punishable Under Section 16(1)(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. The prosecution case in brief is that one G.C. Bhatt. Food Inspector of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (orig. complainant) went to Cineva Restaurant near Idgah Police Chowky, Ahmedabad on 18-7-1980 at about 9-00 a.m. Respondent No. 1-accused is the manager of the said hotel. Original accused No. 1 is the owner of the said hotel. At the relevant time, origi...
Tag this Judgment!Mohomad Kasim Abdul Latif Memon and ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-1991
Reported in: 1993CriLJ952; (1992)1GLR213
ORDERB.J. Shethnan, J.1. Mr. Saiyed, learned advocate, appearing for the petitioners has raised four contentions in this application, viz. (1) that it is a pure case of circumstantial evidence; (ii) that the injured witness Jabbar himself had refused to identify the accused in a test identification parade; (iii) that the FIR does not disclose the names of the accused nor the description of the accused : and (iv) that the other assailants viz. the driver of Hero Honda and the scooterist are not arrested by the police.2. I would like to take up the last contention first when he had submitted that the driver of Hero Honda and the scooterist, who had also belaboured the deceased along with the present petitioners and therefore the deceased died, are not arrested, would itself be a ground for not releasing the accused. Therefore, this contention of Mr. Saiyed fails and is rejected.3. The second contention regarding the circumstantial evidence that the names of the accused are not disclosed ...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamdutt Upadhyay and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-1991
Reported in: (1992)1GLR121
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioners have earlier filed Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 2412 of 1991, which was withdrawn on 14-8-1991. However, though Mr. Saiyed, learned Advocate himself appeared in the matter also, no such averment is made in this petition. Not even a statement is made in this application that except this application, no other application is filed before this Court or before the Supreme Court.2. When I had called upon Mr. Saiyed to explain about the same, he submitted that he has made an averment in para-9 which reads as under:During the investigation, one bail application was filed but was withdrawn.This statement is absolutely vague. It leads neither here nor there. However, Mr. Ssiyed stated that he wants to explain the same. Therefore, leave to amend is granted.3. By way of an amendment, Mr. Saiyed has stated at the end of para-9 in this application as under:It is submitted that at the time of Bail Application No. 2412 of 1991 the chargesheet was not with t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Yoganand Textiles
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-1991
Reported in: [1993]202ITR869(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The assessee, a registered partnership firm, filed return of its income for the assessment year 1976-77 in respect of accounting period of Samvat year 2031 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,14,483. The Income-tax Officer Circle I.E. (Rev.), Surat, by his order dated March 25, 1977, framed the assessment under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The business of the assessee-firm was of manufacturing art silk cloth and Shri Suresh Nagindas and Shri Mahesh Nagindas who were partners in the firm were paid Rs. 54,796 and Rs. 51,969 being 'majuri' payments for job work done by them for the assessee-firm. Thereafter, proceedings under section 263 of the said Act were initiated by the Commissioner of Income-tax Baroda, on the ground that the Income-tax Officer failed to disallow under section 40(b) of the said Act, the sums of Rs. 54,796 and Rs. 51,963 paid by way of 'majuri' to these two partners. 2. The Commissioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmansinh Dansinhji Gohel and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-1991
Reported in: (1992)2GLR1197
S.M. Soni, J.1. Short question that arises in this revision application is whether accused is entitled to copy of muddamal Articles if they consist of documents, under Sub-section (7) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Code' for short).2. Few facts to resolve this controversy required to be stated are as under: Petitioners are accused of an offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Charge-sheet is filed against them and the case is Special Case No. 1 of 1990 before the Special Judge, Nadiad, District Kheda. There is no dispute that documents annexed with the charge-sheet are supplied when the accused were trapped and raid was carried out; search of the persons and their office premises was carried out and certain Articles which included certain receipt books, register and other documents are seized. Accused before commencement of trial has by application Ex. 6 asked for the copies of documents seized during search and taken as muddamal. Thu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »