Gujarat Court July 1993 Judgments
Sanjanben Shobharajsinh Sindha Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-1993
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1648
S.D. Shah, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu has challenged the legality and validity of the order of detention, dated August 24, 1992 passed by the Commissioner of Police under Section 3(2) of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'PASA Act').2. A suspended police employee, as it appears from the grounds supplied, created an atmosphere of terror and horror in the city of Baroda. From the grounds of detention, which are supplied to the detenu, it becomes clear that the detenu is a person, who either by himself or as a leader of gang commits and has committed offences punishable under Chapter XVI or XVII of I.P. Code. Therefore, for the grounds which are supplied to the detenu, the impugned order of detention came to be passed under Section 3(2) of the PASA Act. It is not necessary for us, at this stage, to refer to the details of grounds as, in our opinion, the activities attributed ...
Tag this Judgment!Medatia Indrasinghji (Decd.) Through His Heirs and Lrs. Vs. Raval Nara ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-1993
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1691
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The decision rendered by the learned Assistant Judge of Sabarkantha at Himatnagar on 22nd July, 1977 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1973 is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the appellant before this Court under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ('the Code' for brief). Thereby the learned lower appellate Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) at Himatnagar on 12th January, 1973 in Regular Civil Suit No. 46 of 1967. It is needless to say that the trial Court decreed the suit instituted by the present respondents.2. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of this appeal the original appellant has breathed his last and his heirs and legal representatives have been brought on record in his place by virtue of the Order passed by this Court on 17th October, 1984 in Civil Application No. 2518 of 1984. The appellant was the defendant and the respondents were the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Thakkar Balvantray Purshottamdas Vs. Hasmukhbhai Ugarchand Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-1993
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1714
S.D. Shah, J.1. This appeal from order is filed by original plaintiff against the judgment and order passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad, dated January 7, 1993 whereby he has vacated the ad interim relief granted earlier in favour of the appellant-plaintiff and has dismissed the Notice of Motion taken out by the appellant-plaintiff.2. It appears that the appellant-plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 5928 of 1992 in the City Civil Court for permanent injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from manufacturing, advertising and marketing his product 'DHANANI DAL' under the name 'MARUTI' and/or under the name which may be identical or deceptively similar to the name of the product of the appellant-plaintiff, namely, 'MARUTI'. It is pertinent to note that the respondent-defendant has prior thereto instituted Civil Suit No. 5330 of 1992 in the City Civil Court wherein he has prayed for mandatory injunction directing the present appellant-plaintiff not to make use of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Deviprasad Vrajlal Kachhiya Vs. Chhotalal Narottamdas Panchal and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-1993
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1703
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. In this revision, under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ('the Bombay Rent Act' for short), the petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 108 of 1978, by the learned District Judge, at Bharuch, on 25th July, 1979.2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff-Landlord and respondent No. 1 is the original defendant-Tenant and respondent No. 2 is the brother of the landlord. The parties are, hereinafter, referred to as the 'landlord' and 'the tenant' for the sake of brevity and convenience.3. The landlord filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 143 of 1974, against the tenant, for perpetual injunction and, also for the recovery of the demised premises. The plaintiff and his brother are the owners of an immovable property, situated in Ward No. 3, bearing Municipal No. 273, known as Vankarvad area in Rajpipla town, and the tenant was let two rooms to the west of the said property, which is, herein...
Tag this Judgment!A.C. Shah and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-1993
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1829
S.D. Shah, J. 1. A perennial dispute of inequality of opportunity in the matter of promotion to the post of Deputy Engineer in the Electrical Engineering Branch of Public Works Department of the State of Gujarat between Junior Engineers (Degree Holders) and Supervisors (Diploma Holders) was brought to the Court as back as 1975 and the following directions issued by the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 1749 of 1980 has revived this petition for our decision. By judgment and order dated 16th March, 1993 reported in : (1993)IILLJ679SC , State v. A.C. Shah the Supreme Court observed as under (at page No. 1306 para 4):We stand deprived of the pleadings of the parties before the High Court. The pleadings now introduced do not help us. Significantly, the High Court judgment is silent as to the basis en which it was persuaded to strike down of 2 : 1 for Junior Engineers and Supervisors respectively. The tenor of the judgment of the High Court does however suggest that the executive f...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.H. Kharawala
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-1993
Reported in: [1994]208ITR691(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether the assessee was entitled to claim initial depreciation at 20% in respect of new machinery installed at a cost of Rs. 3,42,248 ?' 2. This reference relates to the assessment year 1976-77. During the accounting period which ended on March 31, 1976, the assessee installed new machinery of the value of Rs. 3,42,248. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 68,450 being 20 per cent. of Rs. 3,42,248. On a scrutiny of the balance-sheet the Income-tax Officer found that as a result of this new addition, the actual cost of machinery of the assessee was Rs. 9,84,244 and, therefore, it was not entitled to claim 20 per cent. depreciation on the ground that it was a small scale industry. The Income-tax Officer rejected the contention raised on behalf of the assessee that...
Tag this Judgment!A.H. Pathan Vs. AmIn Textiles and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-1993
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1843; (1995)1GLR400
ORDERB.C. Patel, J.1. Against the order of dismissal of a complaint and discharge passed on 12-3-1986 in Criminal Case No. 103/85 by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahrnedabad, present petition is filed.( x x x Para 2 x x x )3. When a complaint is lodged before the Magistrate and if the Magistrate is taking cognizance on it, then as per the mandate, Magistrate shall have to examine on oath the complainant and the witnesses present if any and the substance of such examination shall have to be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant, witnesses and the Magistrate. However, in case of public servant, if while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties complaint is filed, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses and may straightway issue process. This provision is made, it seems, with a view to save the valuable time of a public servant. On perusal of the record, it transpires that on 17-1-85 the process was issued and for servi...
Tag this Judgment!Mohmad Ayub @ Babbu Sagirbhai Shaikh Vs. Commissioner of Police and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR589
S. Nainar Sundaram, C.J.1. The question that stands referred to us, as a Full Bench, for our consideration and answer, runs as follows:Whether the cases for the offences punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII of the I.P.C. and Chapter V of the Arms Act, 1959, pending investigation can be taken into consideration for arriving at the subjective satisfaction as to whether a person is a 'dangerous person' within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985The need for the reference arose, because, B.S. Kapadia and N.J. Pandya, JJ., who have made the reference, found themselves not in a position to agree with the view of the Bench of C.V. Jani and (one of us), S.D. Dave, JJ., in Shamjibhai Manjibhai Patel v. Commissioner of Police, City of Ahmedabad and Anr. 1992 (2) XXXIII (2) GLR 1360, wherein it was opined:.it shall have to be accepted that the detaining authority could not have utilised the registration of the abovesaid 4 Criminal Cases again...
Tag this Judgment!Venkataraman T. Pai Vs. C.R. Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-23-1993
Reported in: 1996(81)ELT467(Guj)
1. Criminal Case No. 441 of 1987 has been pending in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad for offences punishable under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'Salt Act') in connection with various alleged breaches. In the said complaint an application was given at mark 5/25 with a prayer that Section 9AA of the Salt Act be permitted to be added to the complaint. This application was heard and decided by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 3-11-1989 in favour of the complainant - Department. 2. Being aggrieved by this order, one of the accused of that case, filed Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 141 of 1989 joining the original complainant as respondent No. 1 and the remaining accused of the said also as respondents No. 2 to 9. Later on, in the year 1992, original accused No. 5 who is respondent No. 4 in 1989 Criminal Misc. Application filed another Misc. Criminal Application No. 4869 of 1992...
Tag this Judgment!Shivabhai Jijidas Patel (Decd.) Through His Heirs Vs. Chandrashekhar R ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-20-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR501
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. Mr. Yatin Soni, learned Advocate for the respondent has argued this matter two days in instalments and he covered major part of his arguments. However, today though the matter was called out repeatedly he did not remain present. Therefore, the judgment is proceeded with.2. The present revision application is filed by the original plaintiff-landlord against the order dt. 24-1-1991 passed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in Civil Revision Application No. 3 of 1990 which was filed by the original defendant (tenant) against the order dt. 31-1-1990 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Mirzapur dismissing the Restoration Application No. 87 of 1980.3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the Regular Civil Suit No. 540 of 1983 against the respondent (original defendant) under Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act for recovering the possession of the suit premises on the ground of arrears ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »