Gujarat Court November 1994 Judgments
Tadvi Bhikhabhai Gordharbhai and anr. Vs. Desai Mohanlal Ranchhoddas a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-30-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Guj182; (1995)1GLR785
ORDERRajesh Balia, J.1. Respondent No. 1 had filed a suit against the petitioners jointly for recovery of a sum due from the petitioners in the Court of 9th Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.) Vadodara which was registered as Reg. Civil Suit No. 1364 of 1980.2. The petitioner No. 1 moved an application stating that defendant No. 2 (petitioner No. 2 in this petition) has approached the Debt Settlement Officer under the Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act, 1976 and the Debt Settlement Officer passed the order in favour of defendant No. 2 on 1-9-1982 and, therefore, the suit may be dismissed having abated.3. The Court by its order dated 10-1-1983 rejected that the application and ordered the suit to proceed further on merits since Debt Settlement Officer rejected application of defendant No. 1 on 5-1-1981 while application of defendant No. 2 relating to the amount of Rs. 2800/- was allowed on 1-9-1982 and said debt was discharged. As the application of defendant No. 1 under the Act of 1976 was rejected b...
Tag this Judgment!Ankleshwar Industrial Association and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-30-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR787
Rajesh Balia, J.1. All the petitions raise common issue, viz., the legality of calling upon the petitioners who are the users of Telex amenities from the Telegraph Department to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of deposit as a security towards telex connection. The contention of the petitioners in all the petitions is that the respondents have no authority to demand security deposit from the existing telex operators or to enhance the security deposit already with them. The increase in the deposit provisions, according to the petitioners, apply only to the new subscribers demanding such facility.2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and respondents, I am of the opinion that the contention of the petitioners is not well-founded. The security deposit is required for the purpose of ensuring regular payment by the subscribers and ward against the possible defaults and the authority providing telex connection has necessary authority to revise the same to achieve that purpos...
Tag this Judgment!Kanchanbhai Jhaverbhai Desai and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-30-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR156
B.N. Kirpal, C.J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the main prayer of the petitioner is that the respondents had taken possession of the land belonging to them after the same has been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), but no compensation was given with regard to the crops which were standing thereon. The claim of the petitioners, is that an appropriate writ should be issued to the respondents to make payment in respect thereof. In supprot of this claim, the petitioners relied on Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Motibhai Paragbhai and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. 1994 (2) XXXV (2) GLR 1105.2. When this petition came up for preliminary hearing rule was issued. At that time, the attention of the Division Bench was drawn to the said judgment in Motibhai Paragbhai's case. The Bench, however, was of the opinion that as the attention of the Court in Motibhai Paragbh...
Tag this Judgment!Kirtiben B. AmIn Vs. Mafatlal Apparels
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-28-1994
Reported in: (1995)2GLR1362
S. Chatterji, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Rajesh Dave, learned Advocate for the opponent original petitioner waives service of Rule. By consent of learned Advocates for the parties, Rule is heard to-day. 2. The present Application, at the instance of the workman-original respondent in the aforesaid petition has been filed for vacating the ad-interim order dated 29-3-1994 passed by this Court and/or for effecting the payment as envisaged under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The employer has challenged the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in Approval Application No. (IT) No. 5/93) in Reference (IT) No. 310 of 1986, dated 29-12-1993, whereby the approval for the dismissal of the services of the applicant-workman has been refused by the Tribunal. 3. The attention of this Court has been drawn to the decision of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Samser Ali (SK) v. Keshoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. & ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendrakumar Maneklal Sheth (Huf) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-25-1994
Reported in: [1995]213ITR715(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following questions of law for opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in giving certain directions to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that it gave in its appellate order 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in reversing the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner exercising his discretion to admit or not to admit the appeal for adjudication ?' 2. At the time of hearing of this reference learned counsel for the parties submitted that if question No. 3 is decided in favour of the assessee, questions Nos. 1 and 2 wou...
Tag this Judgment!Thakore Ravesinh Amarsinh Vs. Diwaliben Motibhai Bapuji Patelia and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-25-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR703
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Brief facts leading to this petition are as under:One Motibhai Bapuji was the owner of the fields bearing Survey Nos. 179/11, 180/1, 181/4, 179/1 and 181/14 situated in the sim of Kadachhala, Ta: Lunawada, Dist: Panch Mahals. Said Motibhai wanted to sell said lands and, therefore, he made application to the Secretary, Revenue Department on 10-3-1969 seeking permission to sell these lands. Thereafter, said Motibhai agreed to sell the lands to the petitioner. During me course of inquiry held by the Circle Inspector, Motibhai showed his willingness to sell the lands to the petitioner at the price fixed by the Government. Thereafter, at the instance of said Motibhai, the petitioner paid Vadilal Chunilal Rs. 1873-75 ps. on behalf of Motibhai towards sale price of the aforesaid lands on 31-12-1969 and the possession of the said fileds was handed over to the petitioner on the same day. By the resolution dated 21-1-1970, the Government gave permission to Motibhai Bapuji to s...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad and ors. Vs. Santosh Vasant Mali and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-24-1994
Reported in: (1995)2GLR1640
B.N. Kirpal, C.J.1. Admit. We have heard the Counsels appearing for the parties at length and we have proceeded to pronounce this judgment immediately. 2. The respondents are those persons who had applied for being recruited as Police Constables in the year 1990. A select list was prepared in February 1991. Out of the select list, the petitioners were not appointed and thereupon a writ petition was filed contenting that, because the names of the petitioners had appeared in the select list, they should be appointed as and when vacancies arise. The contention of the respondents in the writ petition was that the select list has been operated even after February 1992 and the number of persons whose names were included in the select list was 1690 and that included in the waiting list was 169 candidates. 3. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the select list had been operated even after one year of its preparation and there was no reason as to why the respondents should be d...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Bachubhai Naginbhai Shah and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-21-1994
Reported in: (1996)2GLR643
D.G. Karia, J.1. Mr. S.R. Divetia, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, requested to convert this Special Criminal Application into Criminal Revision Application. Request granted.2. The salient and substantial question of law that looms for determination may be stated as under:Whether the offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, extending imprisonment for a term of three years would be a summary triable case or warrant triable case, and what is the effect of the provisions of Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?3. The points which are said to have arisen for determination and which have been formulated in the memo of this Criminal Revision Application are as under:(1) Whether the offences enumerated above under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, wherein the conviction and sentence prescribed is three years is a warrant triable or summons triable case?(2) Whether in a warrant triable case, Section 167(5) of the Cr. P.C. is applicable?(3) Whether Section 116 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rangkala Investments Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-17-1994
Reported in: [1997]89CompCas754(Guj); (1995)1GLR308
M.S. Parikh, J.1. These two petitions are submitted by the petitioners for obtaining sanction of the scheme of amalgamation as per annexure 'B' in Company Petition No. 47 of 1994 and at annexure 'C' in Company Petition No. 48 of 1994 by virtue of the provisions contained in sections 391, 392 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The petitioner in Company Petition No. 48 of 1994, namely, Gujarat Organics Limited, is the transferor company and the petitioner in Company Petition No. 47 of 19945, namely, Rangkala Investments Limited, is the transferee company. They are accordingly referred to as 'the transferor company and the transferee company', respectively, in this judgment. The transferor company is sought to be amalgamated with the transferee company. 3. The reasons for the proposed amalgamation are more particularly set out in both the petitions. Accordingly, the transferor company is a subsidiary of the transferee company, which has the holding to the extent ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Vikramji Ajuji Thakor
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-15-1994
Reported in: (1998)1GLR734
C.K. Thakker, J.1. This appeal is filed by the State of Gujarat against an order of acquittal recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur on November 15,1994 in Sessions Case No. 102 of 1989. By the impugned order, the trial Court acquitted the respondent-accused for offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.).2. The case of the prosecution was that on 8th May 1989 between 5-30 and 6-00 p.m., a minor girl Harsha aged about 4 years, daughter of complainant Harshadkumar alias Hasmukhbhai Dahyabhai had gone in Vadi of Sitabhai to ease herself. She came back crying. On being asked, she reported that one Vikala, i.e., Vikram Ajuji Thakor (accused herein) had committed rape on her. She was bleeding. Stool had passed and her bush-shirt was stained with blood. Blood was also oozing from her private part. Shushilaben, mother of Harsha took Harsha to Pethapur Police Station. A complaint was filed by Harshadkumar father of Harsha. Investigatio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »