Gujarat Court December 1993 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.
Ranchhodbhai Dahyabhai Baraiya Vs. Hasmukhlal Pranjivandas Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-22-1993
Reported in: (1995)1GLR611
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad (the Tribunal for convenience) on 30th August, 1979 in Revision Application No. TEN. B.A.1220 of 1978 is under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By its impugned decision, the Tribunal upset the common order passed by the Deputy Collector (Tenancy Appeal) at Kheda (The Appellate authority for convenience) on 17th September 1978 in Tenancy Appeals Nos. 353 and 335 of 1977-78. By his aforesaid order, the appellate authority set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal at Khambhat (the first authority for convenience) on 28th October, 1976 in Tenancy Case No. 12 of 1969. By his aforsaid order, the first authority partly accepted the application made by present respondent No. 1 under Section 32-T read with Sections 31 and 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act for brief) and awarded to him the possession of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Surat Dist. Co-operative Milk Producers ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-1993
Reported in: [1995]211ITR726(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, has referred the following question under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short), for our opinion : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has been right in law in holding that the assessee is eligible for relief, under section 80P(2)(d), of Rs. 93,846 ?' 2. The assessee is the Surat District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Limited. For the assessment year 1976-77, it claimed that interest amount of Rs. 93,846 received from other co-operative societies should be deducted as provided under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer rejected the said claim by holding that the ultimate result of the interest amount was a loss and, hence, the gross total income of the assessee did not include any interest income from co-operative societies and, therefore, the assessee did not qualify for relief under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Commis...
Navalsinh Chandansinh Rajput Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-1993
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1642
S.M. Soni, J.1. Petitioner-detenu has challenged the legality and validity of the order of detention dated 10-5-1993 passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA).2. The petitioner was supplied with the grounds and relevant material, the basis on which the grounds were formulated, along with the order of detention, as provided in Section 9(1) of PASA. The grounds, in substance, read as under:That the detenu, with his associates Kanji Rabari, Ashok Marvadi and Others, carries on anti-social criminal activity of possessing and selling desi as well as foreign liquor in the area of Saranyavas and Bhavaninagar of Odhav area of Ahmedabad City. In view of this activity, two offences are registered against the detenu as shown in the table in the grounds. This activity of the detenu being injurious to the health of the public, it is alleged that the activity is prejudicia...
Jayeshkumar G. Vyas and ors. Vs. Vijay Housing Development and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR377
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. In all these matters the petitioners have in effect challenged the action of the Municipal Corporation for demolishing unauthorised constructions particularly those made in the space which was required to be kept open for parking vehicles.2. Special Civil Application No. 5555 of 1993 was originally filed by 55 persons and thereafter, as per Court's order dated 18-6-1993, petitioners Nos. 56 to 77 were added. However, later by order dated 11-6-1993 it was directed by the Court that separate petitions should be filed for petitioners other than the petitioner No. 1. As per the said direction, separate petitions - Special Civil Application Nos. 5711 of 1993 to 5764 of 1993 and Special Civil Application Nos. 6321 of 1993 to 6342 of 1993 were filed. In this group of matters the petitioners have prayed that the respondent No. 2-Municipal Corporation be restrained from demolishing the shops constructed in the cellar, ground-floor and first floor of the building known as ...
State of Gujarat Vs. Manibhai Makanji Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR320
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. 'Whether the learned trial Judge was justified in not permitting the learned A.G.P. to cross-examine the plaintiffs witness, ordering the closure of the cross-examination, on the sole ground that earlier during the course of the day, when the case was called out twice, despite the fact that the same was specifically fixed for cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness, he did not remain present?' This, in short, is the question that arises for consideration in the background of following facts.2. To narrate briefly, the few relevant facts--Shri Manibhal Makanji Patel had filed a Civil Suit No. 420 of 1984 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Nadiad. On 6-9-1990, the case was fixed for cross-examination of the plaintiffs witness, with the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. However, when the same was called out, Mr. N.S. Prajapati, who at the relevant time happened to be both A.G.P. as well as A.P.P. was not present, as a res...
Umesh Laxmanbhai Patel Vs. Vice-chancellor, Sardar Patel University an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Guj141
ORDERC.V. Jani, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is 'student of M.B.A. Course in Sardar Patel University of Anand, has prayed for an appropriate writ to direct the respondents, namely the Vice-Chancellor of the University and the Director of Post Graduate Institute of Business Management of the University, to treat him as having passed the First Year M.B.A. Examination in the year 1992-93, and also to permit him to prosecute his further studies on the footing that he has passed the said examination.2. As per the averments made in the petition he passed his B. A. Examination from M. S. University of Baroda in the year 1991 and thereafter he secured admission inM.B.A. Course of Sardar Patel University in July 1992. The M.B.A. Course consists of two years and four semesters of six months each. According to the petitioner he cleared the first semester, but at the end of the second semester he was shown to have 'failed', as a result of...
State of Gujarat Vs. Jaipalsingh Jaswantsingh Engineers and Contractor ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR258
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. 'Whether the Court in view of the contentions facts between the rival parties without raising any issue thereupon and recording evidence in the light of the same can arbitrarily decide an application under Section 37(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940?' In other words, 'Whether the applicant and for that purpose even the opponent can succeed before the Court on mere ipse-dixit when the basic facts affirmed by one party and disputed by the other is not further supported by leading any evidence as regard their respective contentions?'2. To state few relevant facts leading to raising of the aforesaid question - Opponent M/s. Jaipalsingh Jaswantsingh, Engineers & Contractors, Chandigarh filed an application being Civil Misc. Application No. 84 of 1988 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge [S.D], Baroda, under Section 37(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'Act') praying for extension of time limit placed by the agreement dated 16-12-1982. As alleged by the opponent,...
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Chimanlal Estate Owners' Associati ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-18-1993
Reported in: (1995)1GLR224
G.T. Nanavati, Acting C.J.1. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6127 of 1983 Chimanlal Estate Oqners Asso. v. Ahmedabad Muni. Corporation 1986 (2) GLR 1323 Letters Patent Appeal No. 243 of 1986 is filed by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, which was respondent No. 1 in the petition. Letters Patent Appeal No. 30 of 1987 is filed by the State of Gujarat, which was respondent No. 2 in the petition. As both these appeals arise out of the same judgment and raise the same point, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Special Civil Application No. 6127 of 1983 was filed by Chimanlal Estate Owners Association, an association registered under the Bombay Non-Trading Corporation Act. The association owns certain properties situated on Ashram Road in the city of Ahmedabad. In respect of one of such properties, the Association submitted its first plan for construction and it was sanctio...
Dipendra G. Choksi and anr. Vs. Kailashchandra C. Dhoot and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-17-1993
Reported in: (1995)1GLR424
B.C. Patel, J.1. Petitioners-original accused have preferred this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the process issued by Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, in Criminal Cases Nos. 2027 of 1990, 1954 of 1990, 1955 of 1990 and 2028 of 1990.2. On different dates goods were obtained for which payments were made by cheques and as the cheques were dishonoured the complaints referred to hereinabove came to be filed against the petitioners-original accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. So far as parties to the present proceedings are concerned, they are the same parties in all the petitions and the question involved is also the common question, and hence all the petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.3. Few relevant facts are as under:Opponent No. 1 is the Manager of Shree Trading Corporation which deals in the business of caustic soda at Ahmedabad. Petitioner No. 1 is the Managing Direct...
State of Gujarat Vs. Kantilal Ambalal Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-17-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR571
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. The three important questions that surface for consideration in this acquittal appeal are - Firstly, 'whether it is open to the trial Court to straightway accept the 'plea-of-guilty' and immediately thereupon record the order of conviction and sentence without issuing notice to the learned P.P. and for that purpose [when not represented by the learned P.P.] to the learned Advocate for the complainant to enable him to make submission either on the acceptance of the said 'plea-of-guilty' and/or Order of sentence to be passed?'Secondly, 'whether the contravention of Clause 16 of the Gujarat Essential Articles [Licensing, Control & Stock Declaration] Order, 1981, framed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 can ever be termed to be a 'Technical Offence' or the same is quite grave and serious enough to be lightly countenanced, while awarding the sentence?'ANDThirdly, 'What is the meaning of the term 'Technical Offence'?2. Few relevant facts leading to above three quest...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »