Gujarat Court April 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.
Koli Bhima Hari and ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-23-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ1705; (1993)2GLR1250
B.J. Shethna, J.1. This application is filed by the applicants-accused for releasing them on bail during the pendency and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 1058 of 1992 filed by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the leamed Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, dated 5-8-92. On 5-4-93, while admitting the appeal, this Court issued non-bailable warrants against the present applicants-accused and pursuant to the said order they were taken into custody. Therefore, this application is filed by the applicants-accused for releasing them on bail.2. Mr. Chimanlal Keila, learned advocate for the applicants, has vehemently submitted that after the order of acquittal, in an acquittal appeal, this court ought not to have issued non-bailable warrants against the accused, as the innocence of the accused is certainly not weakened by the order of the acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge in their favour. He further submitted that the applicant Mo. 2-Koli Hiraben Bhim...
Sardarsingh Nagsingh Rajput (Sisodia) and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-23-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ3473; (1993)1GLR905
ORDERK.J. Vaidya, J.1. In this group of three Misc. Criminal Applications pertaining to bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act), following four are indeed the questions of quite great legal importance, having sweeping effect upon the ultimate fate of the prosecution as well as that of the accused pending trial, which have surfaced during the course of arguments calling for determination of the same by this Court. They are :-(1) Whether for any alleged lapse or default committed by the Investigating Agency in not submitting Chargesheet within the prescribed time-limit of 90 days as warranted under Section 167(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, particularly in matter of the offences punishable under the NDPS Act, the accused are straightway entitled to be released on such default bail, altogether overlooking and ignoring the limitations imposed by the Legislature on Courts on exercise of such powers under Section 37 (amended) of ...
Rajendra L. Acharya Vs. State of Gujarat Through the Govt. Pleader
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-23-1993
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1259
A.N. Divecha, J. 1. The petitioner has moved this application under Sections 439 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the new Cr. P. C for brief). He has thereby prayed inter alia for his release on bail after quashing and setting aside the order passed by This Court on 30th December, 1992 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 4998 of 1992 and for restoration of the order of the Sessions Court at Vadodara passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 896 of 1992 releasing him on bail.2. This matter was placed before our learned Brother K.G. Shah, J. for hearing and disposal. It appears that he found it difficult to reconcile the loss of liberty without affording an opportunity of hearing and the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Vikramjit Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in ATR 1992 SC 474 declaring the law to the effect that no Bench can comment on the functioning of a Co-ordinate Bench of the same Court, much less sit in judgment as an appellate Court over its d...
Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Vs. S.R. Parmar and Co. and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-22-1993
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1140
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation ('GIDC' for short) has questioned the legality and validity of the judgments of the Trial Court making the awards of the arbitrator, Rule of the Court, in all this group of eight appeals, by invoking the aids of the provisions of Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ('the Act' for short hereinafter). 2. A few material facts leading to the rise of this group of appeals may be stated, at this stage. The appellant, GIDC, had filed civil suits against the respondent-contractor, M/s. S. R. Parmar and Company, a proprietary concern, at Ahmedabad ('the Contractor' for short). In the course of the proceedings of the suits filed by the GIDC, and arbitration agreement, Ex. 35, between the parties was entered into, and the Trial Court passed order with regard to the reference of the dispute between the parties to the Arbitrator Mr. B. P. Patel, in all the four suits filed in the Trial Court. 3. The Arbitrator, after hearing the pa...
Manubhai Bhikhabhai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-22-1993
Reported in: [1994]205ITR505(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J. 1. As the point involved in these three references is identical, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These three references have been made by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee. The question referred to this court is identical in all the three references and it reads as under : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset in question was at the rate of Rs. 50 per share ?' 3. The facts relevant for the present purpose may now be briefly stated. Manubhai Bhikhabhai, Jayantilal Bhikhabhai and Chinubhai Bhikhabhai, are three brothers who were assessees in these three references were engaged in the business of managing limited companies either as the managing director or managing agents and also held the office of ...
State of Gujarat Vs. Mohanbhai Ravjibhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-20-1993
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1621
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. The respondent accused was charged for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), by his judgment and order dated 5th September, 1983, acquitted the accused of offence under Sections 363 and 366 of I.P.C., but so far as offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. is concerned, he held that he had no territorial jurisdiction to try the accused in respect of this charge and that it would be open to the prosecution to try him before a Court having such jurisdiction. It is judgment and order of acquittal which has been challenged by the. State, in this appeal.2. The Learned Counsel for the State has taken us through the record and proceedings of the case as also oral and documentary evidence on record, on the basis of which he has vehemently urged that the judgment and order of acquittal so far as offence under Sections 363 and 366 of I.P.C. is concerned, are not sustainable. We do not propose t...
State of Gujarat Vs. B.S. Thakkar, Manager, Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-19-1993
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1119
1. This appeal by the State of Gujarat for enhancement of the sentence is directed against impugned judgment and order, dated November 5, 1984, rendered in Criminal Case No. 4036 of 1984, by Mr. R. G. Pandya, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol, wherein the respondent - B. S. Thakker, who came to be tried for the alleged offences punishable under Secs. 21(1)(iv)(c) and 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'), on pleading guilty was convicted for the same and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo RI. for 20 days. 2. According to Mr. S. R. Bodat, the Factory Inspector, on June 27, 1984 when he visited 'Digvijay Cement Company Limited at Digvijay Nagar, Ahmedabad, he was informed that on June 23, 1984 at 11-30 a.m. one worker named Rampal Ramlal had met with fatal accident while on work and died on June 26, 1984 during the course of his treatment. Thereafter on making inquiry, the factory Inspector recorded the statement of the wor...
Chanduji @ Khichadi Bhulaji Thakore Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Pol ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-19-1993
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1608
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. By an order dated 10-9-1992 passed under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, externed the petitioner from the city of Ahmedabad and from the contiguous districts of Ahmedabad (Rural), Gandhinagar, Kheda and Mehsana for a period of two years. In appeal to the State Government, the period of externment has been reduced to one year and the area from which the petitioner has been externed is now confined to Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad (Rural) and Gandhinagar. In this petition, the petitioner is not only challenging the order of externment but also vires of Sees, 56 and 59 of the Act.2. It was submitted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India : [1978]2SCR621 . the decisions of the Supreme Court in Gurbachan's case AIR 1952 SC 22 and Hah Khemu Gawali v. Dy. Commissioner of Police Bombay : 1956CriLJ1104 are required to be reconsidered and it should be held that the said sect...
Bijalbhai Ranchhodbhai BIn Jagabhai Vaghri Vs. Usman Miya Rasulmiya an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Guj54
ORDERR.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner challenges the decision of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 1st September, 1983 in Revision Application No. TEN/BA/1344/82 and 1389/82 dismissing the Revision Application which was preferred against the order of the Deputy Collector, Anand dated 28-6-82 and allowing the Revision Application preferred by the landlord against the said order of the Deputy Collector, by which he had remanded the matter and holding that there was no need for the Deputy Collector to remand the matter because the purpose of the lease was of growing fruits in the land in question which attracted the provisions of Section 43A(1)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The land in question admeasuring 1 Acre and 12 Gunthas of Survey No. 350 is situated in village Valssan of Taluka: Anand, District : Kheda. The petitioner made an application under Section 70(b) of the Act on 4-9-81 to the Tenancy Mamlatdar, Anan...
Ashoka Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad Vs. Nagindas Parsottamdas Modi and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-1993
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1073; (1994)ILLJ655Guj
Panchal, J. 1. Whether provisions of S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be made applicable to an application filed under S. 79(1) read with Sub-sec 3(a) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (for short 'the Act') for deciding dispute regarding propriety or legality of an order passed by an employer acting or purporting to act under the Standing Orders as postulated by Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of para A of Sub-section (1) of S. 78 of the Act before the Labour Court constituted under S. 9 of the Act is the question which arises for consideration in this petition filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts giving rise to the petition may now be stated : The petitioner is a Cotton Textile Industry and is governed by the provisions of the Act. The respondent-workman was working as a permanent Patiwala in Mechanic Department of the petitioner - undertaking since December 1, 1982. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-workman reported f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »