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.
Gurunanak Provisions Stores Vs. Dulhonumal Savanmal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Guj31; (1993)2GLR1693
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The appellant has questioned the legality and validity of the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 1007 of 1973, in favour of the respondent-original plaintiff, by City Civil Court, at Ahmedabad, on 9th September, 1976, by invoking the provisions of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('Code' for short).2. The respondent filed the above suit against the appellant, for the recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note. The parties are hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff and 'defendant' for the sake of convenience and brevity.3. The plaintiff, by filing the above suit, claimed an amount of Rs. 5,350/-, contending that the defendant, who was carrying on the business of provision store, had executed a promissory note of Rs. 5,000/-, on 16-8-1972, as he required funds for his business. The defendant, in his written statement, Ex. 22, inter alia, contended that he had not executed the questioned promissiory note. It was also alleged that, the plaintiff ...
Mansukhbhai Nanjibhai Kamani Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-1993
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1588
R.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition by one individual petitioner is also for and on behalf of 16 other persons mentioned in Annexure 'A' to the petition and the Court-fees have been paid accordingly.2. The petitioner challenges the land acquisition proceedings for the purpose of Thebi Irrigation Scheme. The lands are of village Baxipur. A similar challenge by another land holder under the same Notification came to be dismissed by this Bench on 10-3-1993 in Special Civil Application No. 9571 of 1992. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, that judgment does not deal with all the questions raised in the present petition.3. As far as the first contention that no declaration under Section 6 could have been issued after issuance of the Section 9 notice, is concerned, that question has been squarely decided in the aforesaid judgment. However, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in that judgment, an aspect is not considered that Section 6 declaration is one declara...
State of Gujarat Vs. Ramesh Dayabhai Etc.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ1437
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. These two appeals by the State of Gujarat are directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 9-7-1991, rendered in two Criminal Cases Nos. 1149/82 and 1150/82, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot, wherein in one case the respondent-Ramesh Dahyabhai and in another case Ramesh Dahyabhai and three others, who came to be tried for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 17, 20(e) and 21(f) of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 (for short-the Act) were at the end of the trial ordered to be acquitted.2. It may be stated that since both these appeals arise out of the common facts constituting two separate offences, the common reasons for acquittal and identical questions of law arising therefrom, at the joint request and consent of the learned advocates for the parties, they are heard and decided together by this common judgment.3. According to Mr. G.S. Raghuvanshi, PI, CID Crimes, when he was on duty on Forward Market Cell at Rajkot on ...
Bhupendrakumar Narsinhbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR237
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The question raised in this petition is directly covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P.M. Ashwathanarayana Setty and Ors. v. State of Karnataka AIR 1989 SC 100 confirming the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Mrs. Jyoti Nikul Jariwala and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1988 Bombay 123.2. The petitioner applied for succession certificate and letters of administration on the death of his father. The application was registered as Succession Miscellaneous Application No. 166 of 1990 in the Court of the Civil Judge (S.D.), Baroda. The succession certificate has been ordered to be issued in favour of the petitioner. However, the actual issuance of succession certificate is held up on account of non-payment of Courtfees. According to the respondent authorities, having regard to the valuation of the property of Rs. 7,52,760/- the Court-fees payable would be Rs. 54,000/-.3. Section 29 of the Bombay Court Fees Act provides for the payment...
Kalidas Chandubhai Kahar Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-1993
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1659
B.S. Kapadia, J. 1. The petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu Parshuram @ Pashiyo @ Pisi, Chandubhai Kahar has filed this application for quashing and setting aside the order of detention passed against the detenu dated 17th October, 1992 by the Commissioner of Police, Vadodara City, exercising powers under Section 3 of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act ('PASA' for short), on his being satisfied that it is necessary to pass an order directing the detenu to be detained with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Vadodara City. The detenu was served with the order on the same day. Along with that order, the grounds of detention were also served on him. On perusal of the grounds of detention, it appears that there are three cases registered against the detenu. Out of these three cases, the first two cases are pending trial and the last one is under investigation. There are three statements of t...
Meman Aslam HussaIn G. and ors. Vs. Director of Municipalities and anr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR446
Mehta, J. 1. Leave to amend as per the draft. The matter which was before the learned single Judge has come up before the Division Bench in view of the amendment challenging the validity of Section 260 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. Said Section 260 reads as follows : '260. Power to Director to prevent extravagance in the employment of establishment; if the employment of establishment; if in the opinion of the Director the number of persons who are employed by the Municipality as officers or servants, or whom a Municipality proposes to employ or remuneration assigned by the Municipality to those persons or to any particular person is excessive the Municipality shall on the requirement of the Director reduce the number of the said persons or the remuneration of the said person or person : Provided that the Municipality may appeal against any such requirement to the State Government whose decision shall be conclusive.' The petitioners who were the employees of the Municipality ...
Jagdishbhai J. Desai Vs. Vidyaben Rambhai Patel (Decd.) Through Her He ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-1993
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1635
S.D. Shah, J.1 The applicant of C.A. Nos. 5143 & 5144 of 1992 is the original petitioner in C.R.A. No. 1014 of 1988. The said revision application was admitted by the learned single Judge of This Court on September 29, 1988. It appears that Vidyaben Rambhai Patel instituted Rent Suit No. 1078 of 1986 against the present applicant for his eviction from the suit premises consisting of three rooms, kitchen, gallery on the first floor. The trial Court by its judgment and decree, dated August 16, 1982 passed decree for eviction in favour of land-lady and against the present applicant. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree the present applicant preferred Reg. Civil Appeal No. 282 of 1982 in the District Court at Baroda which dismissed the appeal by its judgment and decree, dated July 30, 1988. Against the said judgment and decree passed by the District Court the aforesaid Civil Revision Application is filed in This Court which is admitted and is pending for final hearing.2. During t...
Shri Shaikh Akil Shaikh Kalu Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ1328
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner who is a detenu for quashing and setting aside the order of detention dated 14-10-1992 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City, on his being satisfied that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area falling under the jurisdiction of Athwa Lines Police Station, it is necessary to detain the petitioner. The said order is passed under Section 3 of the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The petitioner was also served with the grounds on which the order of detention was passed, on the same day.2. On perusal of the grounds, it appears that the detaining authority has relied on two Cr. Rs. being C.R. No. 135/91 and 9/92 and both are for the offences under Chapter XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code. Further, the detaining authority has relied on statements of four witnesses...
Ghadhvi Jitendra Ishwardas Vs. B.K. Thakker and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-1993
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1053
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner made an application dated March 11, 1992 to the respondent No. 1 for permission to have electric connection in the suit premises. Stating that the respondent No. 3 is the landlady and she was not giving her consent for such new electric connection. The application stated that the petitioner had been residing in the suit premises from June 1, 1988. It was stated that the landlady had got the electric meter removed by giving an application to the respondent No. 2-Gujarat Electricity Board and, thus, deprived the petitioner of the basic and essential amenity. The petitioner had asked for permission to have a new connection and asked for 'no objection' from the landlady and she had refused to give such consent. The petitioner submitted that the electricity is the basic necessity and without the same, he was suffering grave hardships and he, therefore, prayed that new electricity connection be given. This was an application under Section 23A of the Bombay Ren...
Decent Laminates (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-05-1993
Reported in: 1993(65)ELT479(Guj)
S. Nainar Sundaram, C.J.1. We heard Mr. Vijay Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Haroobhai M. Mehta, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents. We also considered the pleadings in the case and the documents placed by the parties. 2. There is a controversy with regard to the classification under Tariff Entry No. 4823.90. There is also a controversy as to the entitlement of the benefit of the Exemption Notification No. 135/89-C.E., dated 12-5-1989. The questions in general are admittedly awaiting resolution in an appeal preferred before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in brief called 'CEGAT', preferred by the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 16 of 1993, which we disposed of on 16-3-1993. There we found it just, fair and equitable to adopt the formula followed in Special Civil Application No. 1778 of 1992, order dated 26-6-1992, until the CEGAT renders a decision in the appeal preferred by the petitioners in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »