Gujarat Court September 1991 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.
Kanji Haridas Goradia and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-1991
Reported in: (1994)1GLR375
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner-Panchayat is aggrieved by the order of the respondent authority resuming 176 Acres of gauchar land for public purpose of allotting the land to Scheduled Caste and Backward Class people. On representation of such down trodden people, Mamlatdar, Una had made a proposal for resumption of gauchar land of village Delvada and to allot 182 Acres of the Government waste land to that village for gauchar.2. This resumption under Section 96(4) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act is challenged on the ground that it is in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play.Section 96(4) provides that where any open site or waste vacant or grazing land vesting in the Government has been vested by the Government in the Panchayat, then it shall be lawful for the State Government to resume at any time such site or land if it is required by it for any public purpose. It is, thus, clear that there is ample power in the Government and it is lawful for the Government to r...
Shaw Wallace and Company Ltd. Vs. Repute Fertilizers and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-19-1991
Reported in: (1992)2GLR1273
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner had filed a Summary Suit No. 1175 of 1988 in City Civil Court, Ahmedabad for a sum of Rs. 8,16,451.35 and future interest at the rate of 18% p. a. On February 16, 1989, the suit was decreed against the defendant respondents. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, Misc. Civil Application No. 217 of 1989 was filed before the trial Court for setting aside the ex parte decree. Ultimately, the parties settled the matter and filed consent terms in the Court and the Court passed the decree in terms of compromise pursis Ex. 20. The consent terms though dated May 14, 1989, were filed in the Court on September 21, 1989 and the Court had passed the decree on September 21, 1989. The consent terms provided that the defendants shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,42.875.04 towards the full and final settlement of the decretal dues and these payments were to be made by two post dated cheques for Rs. 3 lacs dated December 30, 1989 and for Rs. 2,42,875.04 dated December 3...
Madhavrao Rambhai Thakore Vs. Trushabai Ramrao Jadhav (Decd.) Through ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-19-1991
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1763
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Petitioner herein has questioned the judgment and decree passed against him for ejectment and arrears of rent by the learned Assistant Judge, at Baroda, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 72 of 1978, by invoking the aids of the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ('Bombay Rent Act' for short hereinafter).2. The petitioner herein is the original defendant-tenant and the opponents, herein, are the original plaintiffs-landlords in respect of a residential property, consisted of one room towards the south of a house situated at Khanderao, Navapura, Bhatt Falia, at Baroda, hereinafter referred to as the 'demised property' for the convenience and brevity sake. The parties are hereinafter addressed to as 'plaintiffs-landlords' and 'defendant-tenant'. One deceased Trushabai Ramrao was the owner in respect of the demised property. It was let out by her to the tenant at the monthly rent of Rs. 40/-. The plaintiffs filed Regul...
Premkumar P. Pandya Vs. Dena Bank and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-18-1991
Reported in: (1992)1GLR296; (1995)IIILLJ90Guj
G.N. Ray, C.J.1. In this Special Civil Application, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the propriety, correctness and legality of the impugned order of dismissal passed against him, on 16th August, 1980, as contained in Annexure 'H' to the Special Civil Application and has prayed for appropriate writs in the nature of certiorari and mandamus for quashing the said impugned order and directing the respondents to pay all arrears of salaries and allowances as admissible to him as an employee of Dena Bank and for directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as if he has never been out of service.2. The petitioner joined as a Clerk in Dena Bank, sometime in 1953 and was promoted as an Accountant in the said Bank in 1960. After the Dena Bank was nationalised, the petitioner was promoted as Branch Manager in April, 1970, in the said Dena Bank. On 5th January, 1971, the petitioner was transferred as a Branch Manager to the Palanpu...
Koli Malde Karsan and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-17-1991
Reported in: (1992)1GLR371
S.M. Soni, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 20-8-1991 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Junagadh below Exh. 51 filed in Sessions Case No. 24 of 1991 whereby the application of the applicants-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused) is rejected.2. Short facts which lead to file Exh. 51 are as under:There was melee in locality called Vadhia Sherion, Tal. Mangrol between two groups. One group was of Koli Malde Karsan and others. Other group was of Arsi Devsi, Deva Rajde and others. Persons of both groups were injured. One person on Arsi Devsi side succumbed to the injuries. Both the sides filed cross-cases against each other. Complaint filed by Arsi Devsi was registered as C.R. No. 102 of 1990. Complaint filed by Koli Malde Karsan was registered as C.R. No. 103 of 1990. The offences were registered in the same Police Station of Shil, Taluka Mangrol, District Junagadh. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted in both the cases an...
BomIn Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-16-1991
Reported in: [1993]199ITR428(Guj)
S.M. Soni, J.1. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the managing directors respectively of petitioner No. 1 company duly registered under the Companies Act. They are assessed to income-tax on the income of the company and as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, they are required to file advance tax estimates as well as income-tax returns at the end of the year. The petitioners filed their returns for the assessment year 1981-82 (relevant to the accounting year 1980-81). In the returns, they showed their income to be Rs. 9,34,061 on March 31, 1982, by the return dated June 30, 1982. Petitioner No. 1 company had submitted its estimate of income and has paid advance tax of Rs. 4,92,000 on an estimated income of Rs. 8,00,000. Petitioner No. 1 company, along with the return, paid the balance tax of Rs. 82,500 on their income of Rs. 9,34,061. The Income-tax Officer, after hearing the parties, assessed the income of petitioner No. 1 company to be an amount of Rs. 10,19,530. The Income-tax Offic...
Patel Plastics Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-11-1991
Reported in: 1992(59)ELT247(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J.1. In these petitions the common question which arises for determination is whether Plastic Battery Tops manufactured by the petitioners are covered by Tariff Item 42 which provides rate of duty for pilfer proof caps for packaging. The petitioners are manufacturing the plastic battery tops (cap seals) out of LDFE/HDPE granules by the process on moulding machines. The cap seals manufactured are used for packaging dry battery cells. The petitioners were clearing the said goods on the basis of residuary Tariff Item 68. The respondents took the view that the said product would be covered by Tariff Item 42 and it would not fall within Tariff Item 68. 2. After the introduction of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, it is the contention of the respondents, that the petitioners' products, which are known as Plastic Battery Tops, are part of primary cells and primary batteries and, therefore, the petitioners are liable to pay excise duty as per Tariff Heading 85.06. It is the contenti...
Shri Commercial Transport Hire Purchase Co. and anr. Vs. New Great Ins ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-11-1991
Reported in: (1992)1GLR623
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Nadiad, on 22-12-1976, in Special Civil Suit No. 100 of 1973, by invoking the aids of the provisions of Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ('Code' for short hereinafter). The appellants herein, who are the original plaintiffs, instituted the above suit, for recovery of Rs. 14,886/- against the respondent herein, who is the original defendant. The appellants/plaintiff, inter alia, contended that plaintiff No. 1 is a registered partnership firm and doing business of selling Motor Trucks on hire purchase basis. It entered into a hire purchase agreement in respect of the diesel Motor Truck No. GTG 1463 with plaintiff No. 2, Mr. S.R. Dave. Insurance proposal was submitted to the respondent/defendant in respect of the aforesaid truck, which was accepted and insurance policy was issued, which was also subsequently renewed.2. According to the case of the plaintiffs...
Solanki Ravibhai Dipubhai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-10-1991
Reported in: (1992)1GLR631
S.M. Soni, J.1. Whether the applicants who apprehend arrest on the charge of non-cognizable offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail pending investigation is a question to be answered in this application.2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. K.J. Shethna for the applicants, learned A.P.P. Shri M.A. Bukhari for the opponents Nos. 1 and 2-State and the Investigating Officer and learned Advocate Mr. P. M. Thakkar for the original complainant-father of the victim. Mr. Thakkar is given audiance with a positive understanding that he has no locus standi, but, only on humanitarian ground representing the father of the victim.3. Before the application be decided on merits, it is necessary to decide as to which of the judgments-Gurbakshsingh v. State of Punjab & Haryana : 1980CriLJ1125 ) should be followed or Kiran Devi v. State of Rajasthan 1987 Supp. SCC 549 is required to be followed as both form precedent under Article 141 of the Constit...
State of Gujarat Vs. Diwaliben Radhav Khant and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-09-1991
Reported in: (1992)1GLR108
B.J. Shethna, J.1. All these Civil Revision Applications are disposed of by this common judgment as the question involved in all these Revision Applications is the same. State of Gujarat has preferred these Revision Applications against the impugned common order dt. 2-8-1989 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Rajkot District at Gondal passed below Exh. 1 in Civil Misc. Applns. Nos. 104 of 1988 to 108 of 1988, 21 of 1989 to 33 of 1989, 35 of 1985, 52 of 1989 to 55 of 1989. The learned Extra Asstt. Judge allowed all applications and modified the earlier judgment passed by his predecessor in his office in Review Application to the effect that the respondent claimants in each applications be awarded additional amount at the rate of 12% of the market value of the land per annum for the entire period beginning from the issuance of preliminary notification upto the award of the Collector or the taking of the possession of the land whichever is earlier.2. Mr. K.C. Shah, learned A.G.R...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »