Gujarat Court May 1992 Judgments
Arvind Narenranath Khungar Vs. Collector of Central Excise and Customs
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-29-1992
Reported in: 1993(67)ELT289(Guj)
1. This common judgment shall govern the disposal of these two criminal applications, one for obtaining the orders of bail and the below. The Misc. Criminal Application No. 1366/92 has been filed by the petitioner Arvind N. Khungar who is in the judicial custody for the alleged commission of the offence punishable u/s 135 of the customs Act, 1962. The Misc. Criminal Application No. 1482/92 has been filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad, for the cancellation of the anticipatory bail orders, Judge, Ahmedabad, in Misc. Crl. Appl. No. 571/92. 2. The Criminal Misc. Application No. 1366/92 was on the Board of this Court (M. S. Parikh, J.) on 7-5-1992 for hearing. The matter was adjourned but, the liberty was given to the petitioner-accused to file a note for fixing the hearing of the matter during vacation. It is, in this way, that the Misc. Criminal Application No. 1366/92 comes up for hearing. The Misc. Criminal Application No. 1482/92 is ordered to be heard along with thi...
Tag this Judgment!Rajindra Dyeing and Printing Mills Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-08-1992
Reported in: 1993(67)ELT217(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The Petitioner-company is a manufacturer of textiles. It exports textiles and is registered with the Reserve Bank of India as a registered exporter. The textiles which are exported by the petitioner are manufactured out of excisable goods or goods which are chargeable to import duty. In 1982-83, the petitioner shipped polyester fabrics and sarees under three shipping bills. One consignment was meant for Aden and other two for Jeddah. In manufacture of the said goods, the petitioner had used excisable goods liable to excise duty. The petitioner submitted shipping bills to the Proper Officer, who, after satisfying himself about the nature of the goods, and payment of duty thereon, made an order permitting clearance and loading of the goods for exportation. The goods were then loaded in vessel named CHERRY CHENTAK, on or about 3rd January 1983. In respect of one consignment, the Bill of Lading was issued on 1st January 1983, and in respect of other two, the Bills of La...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjivkar Shantikar Christian Vs. Collector
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-08-1992
Reported in: (1992)2GLR1192
A.N. Divecha, J.1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the correctness of the decision taken by the respondent and communicated to the petitioner by one telegram on 11th September, 1989 refusing to accept the petitioner's resignation from service tendered on 9th August, 1989,2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner was at the relevant time working as Deputy Mamlatdar at Mahuva (District: Surat) under the respondent. On the ground of his ill-health he tendered his resignation from service on 9th August, 1989. He gave therein one month's notice for its acceptance. He wanted his resignation to be effective from 9th September, 1989. A copy of his resignation letter is at Annexure 'A' to this petition. As transpiring therefrom, he submitted his resignation through his immediate superior, that is, the Mamlatdar at Mahuva. As transpiring therefrom, the Mamlatdar at Mahuva sent his res...
Tag this Judgment!Niranjan Dahyabhai Chokshi and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-08-1992
Reported in: (1992)2GLR891
Dave, J.1. At the request and with the consent of the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the learned A.P.Ps. appearing on behalf of the State Authority and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India and the Competent Authority, these 7 petitions arising under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, presenting similar questions of facts and law, have been taken for hearing together and they shall be decided and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The following Table shows the Special Criminal Application Numbers, the name of the petitioners, the name of the detenues and the date of the notice under the relevant provisions of Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as____________________________________________________________________________________Sr. No. Spl. Crl. Appll No. Petitioners Detenu Date of Notice Under SAFEMA 1976______________________________________________________...
Tag this Judgment!Kathi Kalu Raning Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-07-1992
Reported in: (1993)1GLR561
ORDERApplication is allowed. Police remand for a period of 7 (seven) days is granted. It is hereby ordered that the accused is to be handed over to Investigating Police Officer for the same period. If the accused is released on bail then he has to surrender before Investigating Police Officer immediately. The order of releasing the accused on bail, if passed, is hereby suspended for the aforesaid period. Yadi to Chief J. M., Junagadh and Suptd. District Jail.Junagadh Sd/-5. It is under the above circumstances that the petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Junagadh before this Court.6. Mr. A. J. Shastri, the learned Advocate for the petitioner-accused while challenging the impugned judgment and order submitted that the same was patently illegal and perverse being contrary to the express provisions of law as contained in Section 401(2) of the Code inasmuch as the order remanding the petitioner to the police custody has been passed ex par...
Tag this Judgment!Jashoda Shambhusing Sekhavat Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-07-1992
Reported in: (1993)1GLR356
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned Judgment & Order dated 21st December, 1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 4th Court, Ahmedabad Rural in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 133 of 1991 rejecting the application of the petitioner made under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500 per month from the date of the application from the respondent No. 2.2. In her application for maintenance made on 3rd June, 1991, the applicant stated that she and the respondent No. 2 were in love for over two years. Thereafter the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 married as per Hindu rites in January, 1991. It was stated that as the father of the respondent No. 2 - husband wanted a fat dowry the petitioner who had stayed with her husband-respondent No. 2 for about three months, was driven out. The respondent No. 2 was planning to get married with another girl from Sirohi. The petitioner made eff...
Tag this Judgment!Ciba-geigy Ltd. Vs. Torrent Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-1992
Reported in: (1993)1GLR325
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. This is an Appeal under Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 19 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') prefer against the decision of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, dated 15th May, 1991 accepting the application of the Respondent No. 1 for registration of the trade mark 'ULCIBAN' subject to the amendment under Section 18(4) in the specification of goods so as to read 'Medicinal and Pharmaceutical preparations containing 'CIMETIDINE' for the treatment of ulcer and to be sold on the written prescription only' 2. The Respondent No. 1 made an application No. 422819 dated 5th June, 1984 in Class 5 for Registration of the trade mark 'ULCIBAN' under Section 18(1) of the Act which was advertised in Trade Mark Journal No. 925 dated 16th December, 1989 at Page 678 in accordance with the provisions of Section 20 of the Act. The Petitioner gave notice of opposition to the registration under Section 21(1) of the Act and the Respondent No. 1-Applicant s...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrakant Kishanchand Thakwani Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-1992
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1037
M.S. Parikh, J.1. Rule. Service of Rule waived by Mr. M.A. Bukhara, learned A.P.P. for the State.2. The petitioner herein, who happens to be one of the accused in A.C.B. Entry No. 1 of 1991 (Janva-jog), moved an application for return of Rs. 42,314/- seized from him, before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 17, Ahmedabad, on January 20, 1992. The learned Magistrate passed the following order on January 20, 1992:Asstt. Director of A.C.B. Ahmedabad to report on following point and to remain present with all the papers for being of the application on 27-1-1992:(1) From whom the muddamal is seized?(2) Whether any offence is detected in regard of the muddamal? If yes. What is the offence?(3) Whether the muddamal be returned to the applicant?Comply without fail. Issue necessary to the Asstt. Director and learned A.P.P. Fixed for hearing on 27-1-1992.It appears that thereafter the parties were heard on the question of return of muddamal currency notes in the sum of Rs. 42,314/- A...
Tag this Judgment!Gorva Vibhag Co-operative Housing Societies Association and anr. Vs. S ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-1992
Reported in: (1992)1GLR654
M.B. Shah, J.1. In this group of petitions, the validity of Section 76 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, which is enacted after obtaining the President's assent on June 1958, and Sections 32A and 32B read with Article 20(a) and (b) of Schedule I to the Act as amended by the Gujarat Act 21 of 1982, is challenged on various grounds. By amendment of Article 20(a) and (b), it is provided that the Stamp Duty on conveyance is to be charged on the basis of the consideration for such conveyance or, as the case may be, the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of such conveyance whichever is greater.2. The learned Advocate for the petitioners raised the following contentions at the time of hearing of these matters:I. Section 76 of the Bombay Stamp Act read with Schedule II insofar as it repeals the Central Act (Indian Stamp Act, 1899) is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature.II (a) It is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature to amend Sec...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. O.P. Goyal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-1992
Reported in: (1992)2GLR1377
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. What indeed the 'Law' alone can do to help redress the grievances of the aggrieved ones for whom it is ordinarily or specially meant for and made to deliver justice, when unfortunately, the same itself, sometimes stand by-passed, ignored and thereby victimised by no less authorities than the law enforcing agencies themselves, namely the Executives and the Judiciary? For example, in the instant cases, the learned Magistrate himself, who because of his patent ignorance about the object of the Act and lack of social orientation and commitment to the cause and call-for social justice, acquitted the accused without any effective trial!!1.1. It is quite known that ordinarily 'Law' is enacted with a view to regulate and govern the relation between person and person, person and the group of persons, between group of persons inter-se as well as between all these groups of persons and the State, for the redressal of the grievances and for getting justice. Over and above this or...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »