Gujarat Court July 1992 Judgments
Gandhinagar Bottling Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-31-1992
Reported in: 1995(75)ELT54(Guj); (1992)2GLR1339
M.B. Shah, J. 1. M/s. Gandhinagar Bottling Private Limited, petitioner No. 1 is a company engaged in the business of manufacture of aerated waters. It manufactures aerated waters under the brand name of 'CAMPA' being owned by a company called Campa Beverages Private Limited having its registered office at New Delhi. The second petitioner is a Director of petitioner No. 1 - Company. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the Notification No. 223 of 1987, dated 22nd September, 1987 whereby Small Scale Exemption Notification No. 175 of 1986, dated 1st March, 1986 was amended inasmuch as it has provided that the exemption contained in Notification No. 175 of 1986 shall not apply to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person who is not eligible for grant of exemption. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is a small scale manufacturer manufacturing aerated waters by ...
Tag this Judgment!iqbal Musabhai Hunani Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-31-1992
Reported in: (1993)1GLR430
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Bulsar at Navsari on 29th November, 1983 in Criminal Case No. 1925 of 1982 as affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Bulsar at Navsari on 29th March, 1984 in Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 1983 is under challenge in this revisional application preferred by the original accused.2. The facts giving rise to this revisional application are not many and not much in dispute. Respondent No. 1 herein went to the shop of the present petitioner and purchased from him an article of food by the name of Khajur with silver leaf coated thereon by way of sample in the required quantity; He divided the sample into three parts. He placed each part in a plastic polyethylene bag. Each bag was properly packed and sealed after placing the memorandum in Form No. 7 as required. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst for his analysis and report. The report of the Public Analyst on an...
Tag this Judgment!Arunaben Tuljaram Ramanuj Vs. Vasudev Pranjivan Nimavat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-1992
Reported in: II(1993)DMC209; (1993)2GLR1233
A.N. Divecha, J.1. How the cavalier and casual approach to a ease in exercise of the revisional powers of the Sessions Court can result into perpetration of injustice is fully demonstrated in the present case. It is unfortunate that the aggrieved wife has to invoke the further revisional jurisdiction of this Court to seek redressal of her grievance against 'the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 11th August, 1989 in Criminal Revisional Application No. 4 of 1989. Thereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in exercise of his revisional powers under Section 399 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr. P.C. for brief) was pleased to upset the judgment and order passed by the learned 2nd Joint Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Morvi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 129 of 1986.2. The facts giving rise to this revisional application are not many and not much in dispute. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 herein were un...
Tag this Judgment!C.T. Shah and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-29-1992
Reported in: (1992)2GLR1600
M.B. Shah, J.1. In this group of matters the petitioners have challenged the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Classification and Recruitment) (Second Amendment) Rules, 1977 by which the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1967 are amended and by which common Clerical Cadres and Common Accounts Cadres are constituted instead of various cadres. They have also challenged the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Classification and Recruitment) (Eighth Amendment) Rules, 1978 (Annexure 'A' by which the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1967 are amended and the following sub-rule (4) is added:(4) For the purpose of allotment to the common clerical cadre and the common accounts cadre, the Panchayat servants specified in the Table below shall be given notice for exercising option for allotment either in the common clerical cadre or in the common accounts cadre. Such option shall be exercised within a period of three months from the date on which the...
Tag this Judgment!Nathabhai M. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-29-1992
Reported in: (1993)2GLR992
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. By a notification dated 28th November, 1991, issued by the Development Commissioner in exercise of the powers under Section 9(2) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, local area known as Rairinagar came to be separated from the local area comprising Bavala Nagar Panchayat and it was further declared that after division, the local area comprising Bavala Nagar Panchayat shall be known as Bavala Nagar Panchayat covering the area of Bavala Revenue village and Ramnagar Gram Panchayat covering the area of Ramnagar New Vasahat. This notification was challenged by the President of Bavala Nagar Panchayat by filing a petition in This Court, being Special Civil Application No. 9001 of 1991. The learned single Judge who heard the said petition, rejected the same summarily on the ground that the decision to bifurcate Bavala Nagar Panchayat cannot be said to be otherwise than in accordance with law and that it cannot be said that there was no consultation as required under the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Gupta Investment Centre Vs. Priyakant Chandravadan Mogal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-23-1992
Reported in: (1992)2GLR1357
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The order passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) at Baroda on 11th August, 1986 below the application at Exh. 3 in Special Civil Suit No. 210 of 1980 is under challenge in this Appeal from Order. Thereby the learned trial Judge was pleased to dismiss the present appellant's suit under Order 11 Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code' for brief).2. It appears that the present appellant filed one suit against the present respondent in the Court of the Civil Judge (S.D.) at Baroda for a decree in the sum of Rs. 68,935.68 ps. It was registered as Special Civil Suit No. 210 of 1980. The present respondent appears to have filed his written statement and resisted the suit. He appears to have made one application in the suit proceedings calling upon the present appellant to produce certain books of accounts purported to have been relied on by it in support of the decree as prayed for. That application appears to have been taken on the record of th...
Tag this Judgment!Nasirmiya Hasanmiya Mallik Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-22-1992
Reported in: (1993)1GLR853
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. 'Whether in a running-trap of the Corruption case, wherein the complainant whose services came to be requisitioned as a decoy-witness and is found to be hostile to the prosecution, can the trial Court still under the circumstances on the basis of evidence of the Panch-Witness and that of P.I. of the raiding party record the order of conviction sentencing the accused under Section 161 of I.P.C. and Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 ?' This in short is the question which we have been called upon to answer in this Appeal, at the admission stage.2. In order to appreciate the question raised above, few relevant facts may briefly be narrated. Accordingly, the prosecution case as it gets unfolded from the evidence of P.I., Anti-Corruption Bureau Mr. G. K. Desai (PW-3, Exh. 20) is to the effect that on 23-5-1988, he received the information that some of the local police constables, traffic police, forest officers and officers of. R.T.O. depar...
Tag this Judgment!Pratapbhai V. Trivedi Vs. Priyamvada @ Ghamu Pratapbhai Trivedi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-1992
Reported in: II(1993)DMC25
S.D. Shah, J.1. This revision application raises the interesting question as to the right of the husband to withdraw unconditionally the Hindu Marriage Petition for restitution of conjugal rights instituted under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 while the application filed by the wife for maintenance pendente life and the expenses of litigation is pending before the Court. The Trial Court has by its impugned order granted permission to withdraw the petition but has ordered that the withdrawal shall be effective after the decision of the Court on application for maintenance pendente life. This order of the Trial Court has given rise to the present revision.2. The husband instituted Hindu Marriage Petition Under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent--Wife for restitution of conjugal rights being H. M. P. No. 18 of 1987. The respondent--Wife appeared and filed reply to the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. She has also filed application at Exh. 8 f...
Tag this Judgment!Pratapbhai V. Trivedi Vs. Priyavadu @ Ghanu Pratapbhai Trivedi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-1992
Reported in: I(1994)DMC187; (1993)1GLR487
S.D. Shah, J.This revision application raises the interesting question as to the right of the husband to withdraw unconditionally the Hindu Marriage Petition for restitution of conjugal rights instituted under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 while the application filed by the wife for maintenance pendente lite and the expenses of litigation is pending before the Court. The Trial Court has by its impugned order granted per mission to withdraw the petition but has ordered that the withdrawal shall be effective after the decision of the Court on application for maintenance pendente lite. This order of the Trial Court has given rise to the present revision.1. The husband instituted Hindu Marriage Petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent-wife for restitution of conjugal rights being H.M.P. No. 18/87. The respondent-wife appeared and filed reply to the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. She has also filed application at Exh. 8 for grant of mai...
Tag this Judgment!Mohmedhusen Haji Vafati and anr. Vs. Surfunisa Abdulmajid and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-20-1992
Reported in: (1992)2GLR1371
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The decree of eviction ordered to be passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad by its judgment and order passed on 31st January, 1980 in Appeal No. 30 of 1977 is under challenge in this revisional application preferred by the original tenant before this Court. Thereby the Appellate Court was pleased to accept the appeal of the landlords and to set aside the judgment and the decree passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court (Court No. 6) at Ahmedabad on 30th November, 1976 in H.R.P. Suit No. 3510 of 1972. Thereby the learned trial Judge was pleased to dismiss the suit of the landlords for possession of the rented Premises.2. The facts giving rise to this revisional application move in a narrow compass. The respondents are the landlords and the petitioner is the tenant in respect of the premises involved in the litigation giving rise to this revisional application. It appears that the tenant was stated to be in possession of two ro...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »