Gujarat Court August 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.
Gujarat Electricity Board and anr. Vs. Mohanbhai Merubhai Parmar and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-13-1993
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1083
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The present revision application is filed against the order dated 16-12-1991 passed by the learned 2nd Jt. Dist. Judge, Surat in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 71 of 1991 which was filed by the original plaintiffs against the order passed below application (Ex. 5) in Small Cause Suit No. 490 of 1990 of the Court of Small Causes at Surat. By the said order the learned Addl. Small Causes Judge at Surat held that the plaintiffs are being evicted under the provisions of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 and, therefore, it is legal action and legal action is not capable of causing any injury or loss to any party. On behalf of the defendants relevant documentary evidence is produced wherein it is found that the eviction proceedings have been taken and completed under the provisions of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 and hence under the provisions of Section 16 of the said Act there is a bar of juri...
Thakorlal Pranlal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-13-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR481
S. Nainar Sundaram, C.J.1. The appellants in these four Letters Patent Appeals are the petitioners in the Special Civil Applications, out of which they arise. We propose to refer to the appellants as 'petitioners' in this judgment of. ours.2. The petitioners are teachers in Government Colleges. The Government Colleges are affiliated to the Gujarat University. There is no dispute that the petitioners are Government servants. As such, they would be governed by the Bombay Civil Services Rules, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 161 of the Rules prescribes the age of superannuation of Government servants of the category of the petitioners as 58 years. The petitioners, the said Rule governing, cannot be in service beyond the age of 58 years But, they are in the field of coveting the age of 60 years for superannuation on the ground that the Government Colleges, in which they are working are affiliated to the Gujarat University,...
State of Gujarat Vs. Navalchand Thakarshi and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-12-1993
Reported in: (1994)2GLR998
B.C. Patel, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts of the case, further observed:]3. So far as the case against accused No. 1 is concerned, it goes without saying that it was a firm and accused No. 2 was in-charge of the firm. There is sufficient evidence that the firm can be convicted. The Magistrate has not relied on the certificate as he was impressed by the evidence of Public Analyst who was examined by the accused. It is clear that sample was examined for the purpose of Baudouin's test. What was the percentage of sesame oil has not been determined but from the sample of 5 cc of Ghee, the test was carried out which has indicated the presence of sesame oil by Baudouin's test. What the Act requires is that Baudouin's test should be carried out and the result must be in negative meaning thereby there should be no presence of sesame oil and if the Baudouin's test indicates positive then the sample is not according to the standard. Under the Act, it is not necessary for the expert t...
Jayantibhai Chunilal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-12-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR512
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Government passed under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in suo motu revision cancelling the order passed by the competent authority under Section 21(1) of the Act.2. A declaration under Section 21(1) read with Rules 11 and 11(a) was made on March 30, 1979 the last day for making such application. In the body of the form in the column of land-holder, the name of petitioner No. 1 was mentioned. However, the declaration was signed by petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 also. The petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were holding the land of Naroda being Survey Nos. 571/1, 2 and 3.3. By an order dated November 3, 1981, the competent authority rejected the application of the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 had not filled in Form No. 5 and had not made requisite declaration separately. Against this order, no appeal was filed. The appeal was ...
Chanchalben S. Patel (Decd.) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Through S ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-1993
Reported in: [1994]210ITR497(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. This reference is made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the assessee. The following two questions are referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to this court for its opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the gift of part of the share of profits and losses was not valid in law 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was no overriding title in favour of the donees under the gift deed ?' 2. The assessee, Chanchalben, was a partner of Navjivan Trimming Factory. There were only two partners. It appears that she had contributed 50 per cent. capital and had also a share of SD per cent. in the profits and losses of the firm. On October 14, 1970, she gifted 40 per cent. share out of 50 per cent. share in the firm to her brother-in-law, Shankerlal's seven grandsons and his daughter-...
Smt. Chanchalben S. Patel (Decd) Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-1993
Reported in: (1993)115CTR(Guj)179
G. T. NANAVATI, J. :This reference is made by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee. The following two question are referred under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, to this Court for its opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the gift of the part of share of profits and losses was not valid in law ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was no over-riding title in favour of the donees under the gift deed' ?2. Assessee Chanchalben was a partner of M/s. Navjivan Trimming Factory. There were only two partners. It appears that she had contributed 50% capital and had also a share of 50% in the profits and losses of the firm. On 14th October, 1970, she gifted 40% share out of 50% share in the firm to her brother-in-law Shankerlals seven grand sons and his daughter-in-law Kusumben Bharatkumar. It appears that Shankerlal had four sons, v...
Harisinh Jaysinh Barad Vs. Chhaganbhai Shivabhai Patel and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR526
D.G. Karia, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been directed against the decision dated November 14, 1984 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN. B. A. 223 of 1983 dismissing the revision application of the petitioner herein. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal confirmed the judgments of the Courts below holding that the respondents were entitled to purchase the land in question under Section 32PP of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Tenancy Act').2. The respondents herein, by their application dated October 18, 1978, requested the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Hansot, for a declaration that the purchase in respect of the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 116/4 admeasuring A 1-24 Gunthas had not become ineffective under Section 32PP of the Tenancy Act. The respondents contended that the father of the respondents, Shivabhai Rambhai, was cultivating the said land as a ...
P.D. Waghela and ors. Vs. G.C. Raiger, Deputy I.G.P. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-09-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR240
S. Nainar Sundaram, C.J.1. The question, we, as a Full Bench, are being called upon to dscide, rums on the interpretation that should be put on the expression conviction,' found in Clause (a) of the second proviso to Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The question is Would the 'conviction' at the hands of a competent Criminal Court in the first instance suffice, or should the 'conviction' await confirmation at the hands of a final or ultimate competent Criminal Court? The placement of Clause (a) of the second proviso to Clause (2) of Article 311 will stand better appreciated if the entire Article 311, as it stands in the Statute Book, is extracted as follows:311. (1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.(2) No such personas aforesaid shall be dismissed ...
Kashiben N. Wala Vs. Barwala Nagar Panchayat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-06-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR398
Vaidya, J. 1. Kashiben, window of one Najbhai Apabhai Wala by this writ petition under Arts. 14, 16 & 226 of the Constitution of India, has moved this Court inter alia praying for appropriate writ, order or direction to Barwala Nagar Panchayat and the State Government, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 respectively to immediately pay her due amount of family pension and gratuity alongwith other incidental benefits, if any, available to her. 2. The petitioner is a widow of the deceased Najbhai Apabhai Wala who was working with the respondent Panchayat as a peon right from the year 1959 till he expired in the year 1989, i.e., after putting service of 30 years. According to the petitioner, as per the Scheme of the Government framed in the year 1972 and the decision of this Court rendered in case of Mankuvarba Manharsinh Vaghela v. Tharad Nagar Panchayat & Anr., reported in [1992 (1)] XXXIII (1) GLR 375, she is entitled for the family pension. It is her case that despite her repeated oral requests to ...
Gujarat Hotels Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-05-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR560
C.K. Thakker, J.1. I have heard the parties regarding interim relief. Petitioner No. 1, Gujarat Hotels Ltd. (G.H.L. for short) incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Welcome Group, Vadodara. Petitioner No. 2 is a Director of petitioner No. 1-Company. Petitioner No. 3-Indian Tobacco Co. ('I.T.C.' for short) is also a Company duly registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its head office at Virginia House, 37, Chowringhes, Calcutta. Petitioner No. 4 is a shareholder of petitioner No. 3-Company.2. It is the case of petitioners that the petitioner No. 1-G.H.L. was promoted in the year 1982 as joint sector Company by respondent No. 4 - M/s. Gujarat Industrial Investments Corporation Ltd. ('G.I.I.C.' for short) and I.T.C. - petitioner No. 3. G.I.I C. is a Government of Gujarat undertaking established in the year 1968 with a view to promote industrial investment in the State of Gujarat. It is respons...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »