Gujarat Court February 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.
Mer Ranmal Arjan and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-15-1993
Reported in: (1995)1GLR275
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Since common questions are involved in this group of three matters* they are being disposed of, on joint request, by this common judgment. Initially, a short resume of the material facts giving rise to this group of matters may be narrated.2. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 1985, Ranmal Arjan, alongwith seven other accused persons, came to be tried in the Sessions Case No. 12 of 1983, by the Additional Sessions Judge, at Porbandar, in Junagadh District, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 324, 385 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1) of the Arms Act and also under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. In that, the prosecution alleged that, on 17-11-1982, at abour 7-30 p.m. in the area near Sutarwada, in the town of Porbandar, all the accused persons came with arms and assaulted the complainant-Mansukh Jamnadas and his brothers, Dhansukh and Laxmidas. Accused No. 1-appellant herein also opened fir...
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Danaji Sukaji Kodiyar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR87; (1994)IILLJ1113Guj
Ravani, J.1. Rule. Since no order adverse to the respondent-Workman is being passed it is not necessary to serve notice of rule upon him. In facts of the case the matter is ordered to be heard today. 2. The petitioner-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has challenged the legality and validity of the award dated April 13, 1992 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot, by which the respondent-workman has been ordered to be reinstated on his original post of conductor with continuity of service, but without back wages. The grievance of the petitioner-Corporation is that the Labour Court has imposed no punishment on the respondent-Workman though he has been found guilty. It is submitted that withholding of entire back wages is no punishment and some punishment must have been imposed upon him by the Labour Court while exercising powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') 3. The respondent-workman was serving as conductor for a perio...
Amit Kumar Muljibhai Brahmbhatt and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-1993
Reported in: II(1993)DMC171
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The petitioners have moved this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('the Cr. P.C.' for brief) for quashing the criminal complaint inter alia lodged against them by respondent No. 2 herein in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate of Court No. 3 at Ahmedabad charging all the accused including the petitioners named therein as accused Nos. 3 and 4 with the offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for brief).2. The facts giving rise to this petition are not many and not much in dispute. Respondent No. 2 claims to have married one Mukesh Kumar Chhatrasinh some 7 years ago. According to her, during the subsistence of her marriage with her husband, he contracted a second marriage with one Gitaben Bhallalbhai Barot who is arraigned as accused No. 5 in the complaint. According to respondent No. 2, the other accused including the mother of the husband and the father of accused No. 5 and the...
Amitkumar Muljibhai Brahmbhatt and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-1993
Reported in: (1993)1GLR661
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The petitioners have moved this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('the Cr.P.C' for brief) for quashing the criminal complaint inter alia lodged against them by respondent No. 2 herein in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate of Court No. 3 at Ahmedabad charging all the accused including the petitioners named therein as accused Nos. 3 and 4 with the offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the I.P.C.' for brief).2. The facts giving rise to this petition are not many and not much in dispute. Respondent No. 2 claims to have married one Mukeshkumar Chhatrasinh some 7 years ago. According to her, during the subsistence of her marriage with her husband, he contracted a second marriage with one Gitaben Bhailalbhai Barot who is arraigned as accused No. 5 in the complaint. According to respondent No. 2, the other accused including the mother of the husband and the father of accused No 5 and the ...
indravadan @ Indubhai Chimanlal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-1993
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1351
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. By this revision, the petitioner, who is the original accused No. 2, has assailed the legality and validity of the order of conviction under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000 and, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch, on 19-10-1981, in Criminal Case No. 1875 of 1980, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 1981, by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharuch, on 18-lrl983, except reduction of sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months to one month, by invoking the provisions of Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('Code' for short, hereinafter).2. A resume of the material facts giving rise to the present appeal, may, shortly he stated, at this stage.3. One M/s. Parekh & Parekh Engineering Company' had taken contract of construction of 'E' type quarters and tr...
Kantilal Ishwarlal Chael Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-1993
Reported in: (1993)111CTR(Guj)164; [1993]203ITR579(Guj)
S. Nainar Sundaram, C.J.1. Rule. Mr. M. R. Bhatt, learned counsel, appears for the respondent and waives service of rule. 2. Considering the limited scope of the controversy involved in this special civil application, we have taken it up for final disposal today itself. We heard learned counsel on both the sides, on the merits. 3. The impeachment in this special civil application is of the order made by the respondent under section 18B of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for waiver. The order of the respondent is brief and he has chosen to reduce the interest charged and penalty levied by 50 per cent. only. The primary complaint advanced by Mr. J. P. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that having found satisfaction with the case of the assessee for waiver, no reason has been expressed for denying total waiver and confining it only to 50 per cent. Advancing this argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that what happened at the hands...
Mehsana District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. Vs. Commission ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-1993
Reported in: (1993)112CTR(Guj)224; [1993]203ITR601(Guj)
G. T. NANAVATI J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following four questions to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Government subsidy of Rs. 15,25,000 was required to be deducted from the written down value of the assets for the purposes of computing depreciation on the two milk plants at Anand and Mehsana for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1972-73 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the contribution made by the assessee to the Gujarat Co-operative Education Fund was not an allowable deduction in computing the total income of the assessee for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1972-73 ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in declining to entertain the additional ground of appeal relating to the co...
Gambhirsinhji Bhavsinhji Padheriya Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-1993
Reported in: (1993)1GLR649
A.N. Divecha, J.1. Can the Sessions Judge withdraw a part-heard case from the Additional Sessions Judge in exercise of his purported powers under Section 399 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('the CrP.C.' for brief) In the alternative, can the Sessions Judge withdraw a part-heard case from the Additional Sessions Judge in exercise of his powers under Section 409 thereof These are the main questions that have cropped up in this petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C.2. The petitioner has been facing trial for the offences inter alia punishable under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the Act' for brief). It has come to be registered as Sessions Case No. 110 of 1991 in the Sessions Court at Rajkot. It appears that the learned predecessor of the learned present Sessions Judge, by his order passed on 3rd December, 1992 assigned that sessions trial to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, named, Shri V.C. Mandalia, for trial and dis...
Jayantibhai Revabhai Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-1993
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1187
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. Rule. Mr. U.R. Bhatt, the learned A.G.P. waives service of Rule. Heard the learned Advocates.Petitioner-Jayantibhai Revabhai, a convict prisoner undergoing life sentence at the Central Prison, Vadodara by this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution, has brought under challenge the impugned order dated 15-11-1992, passed by the Inspector General of Prisons, Ahmedabad, rejecting his fifth furlough, inter alia praying fur (i) quashing and setting aside the same, and (ii) to grant rightful fifth furlough.2. Mrs. S.S. Patel, the learned Advocate for the petitioner while pressing hard for the fifth furlough to petitioner has highlighted several undisputed glaring circumstances in support of her case, available on the Jail record itself which are enumerated as under:(i) that by this time, petitioner has already been released four times on furlough and twice on parole leave, and without any exception all throughout, he surrendered himself to me Jail Author...
R. Krishnamurthy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-1993
Reported in: [1993]204ITR47(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question to this Court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, although the assessee used the building for the purpose of his residence for a period shourter than a period of two years immediately preceding the date of sale ?' 2. The assessee constructed one house in the financial year 1964-62. It was let out to a tenant. The tenant vacated it in May, 1971. The assessee used that house for his residence from June 1, 1971, to September 21, 1971. The house was sold by the assessee on September 21, 1971. In respect of capital gain which arose as a result of sale of that residential house, the assessee claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act. The Income-tax Officer held that the property was not used by the assessee as a residential house for the imm...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »