Gujarat Court May 1994 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.
State of Gujarat Vs. Ramesh Laxmanbhai Chauhan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1577
K.J. Vaidya, J1. 'In a delay condonation application, filed in any appeal or application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, whether it is always incumbent upon the Court to mechanically issue notice to the other side before deciding the same, one way or the other, or in a given case, depending upon the gravity and seriousness of the offence and the question of 'substantial justice' involved, applying the test of exercising discretion by a right-minded man, the delay in question can be condoned even without issuing notice to the respondents?' This, in short, is the question of quite great importance which has been taken up for consideration in the back-drop and context of the following facts:2. To briefly narrate few relevant facts as far as they are necessary to decide the question raised above, it may be stated that the State of Gujarat has filed an appeal for enhancement of sentence against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 18-7-1992, rendered in Sessions C...
Anilbhai Gopaldas Parikh and ors. Vs. Competent Authority and Dy. Coll ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1290
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The order passed by and on behalf of respondent No. 2 on 22nd August, 1989 under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('the Act' for brief) as also that passed on 26th August, 1993 under Section 20 thereof are under challenge in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order passed on 22nd August, 1989, respondent No. 2 revised the order passed by the Competent Authority (respondent No. 1 herein) on 15th January, 1983 in the proceeding arising from the prescribed form filled in by the petitioners under Section 6(1) of the Act and declared the holding of each petitioner to be surplus to the extent specified therein. By the impugned order passed on 26th August, 1993, the application for exemption made by petitioner No. 4 came to be rejected.2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. Petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the husband of petitioner No. 4 filled in the prescribed fo...
Dilipsinh Mohansinh Vs. S.J. Mansha and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-03-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Guj1; (1995)1GLR885
ORDERA.N. Divecha, J.1. The petitioners of these two petitions are brothers. Their holding with respect to some parcels of land is on co-ownership basis. Questions of fact and law arising in both these petitions are practically identical. I have therefore thought it fit to dispose of both these petitions by this common judgment of mine.2. It is not necessary to set out in detail the facts giving rise to boh these petitions. Each petitioner was holding certain parcels of land within the urban agglomeration of Surat. They were used for agricultural purposes. They applied for exemption under Section 20(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act for brief) with respect to their holding. By one order passed on 15th/22nd March 1978 involved in Special Civil Application No. 4804 of 1982 (the First Petition for convenience) and on 5th May 1979 involved in Special Civil Application No. 5271 of 1982 (the Second Petition for convenience), the exemption as prayed for came to ...
Rameshbhai Maganbhai Patel Vs. Dakshay Kumar Dineshkant Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-03-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Guj130
ORDERD.G. Karia, J. 1. This Civil Revision Application is directed against the decision refusing to grant amendment in written statement of the petitioner, who is the original appellant-defendant.2. Relevant facts giving rise to the petition may be stated thus:--Respondent herein is the original plaintiff, who instituted a Regular Civil Suit No. 127/ 89 against thepetitioner herein for recovery of possession of the suit property on the ground that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the land lord-plaintiff. After the trial, the decree for possession was passed against the defendant-petitioner, by judgment and decree dated January 30, 1990.3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said eviction decree, preferred Civil Appeal No. 25/90 in the Court pf the District Judge, Kheda. The. petitioner submitted an application in the said appeal at Exh, 37, purporting to be under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to amend the written statement, w...
Patel Coal Depot Vs. Dakshaykumar Dineshkant Patel's Power of Attorney ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-03-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR577
D.G. Karia, J.1. This Civil Revision Application is directed against the decision refusing to grant amendment in written statement of the petitioner, who is the original appellant-defendant.Relevant facts giving rise to the petition may be stated thus:2. Respondent herein is the original plaintiff, who instituted a Regular Civil Suit No. 127 of 1989 against the petitioner herein for recovery of possession of the suit property on the ground that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord-plaintiff. After the trial, the decree for possession was passed against the defendant-petitioner, by judgment and decree dated January, 30, 1990.3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said eviction decree, preferred Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1990 in the Court of the District Judge, Kheda. The petitioner submitted an application in the said appeal at Exh. 37, purporting to be under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking permission to amend the written statement, whi...
Arvind Kumar Trikamlal Raval Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3174
S.D. Dave, J.1. The invocation of the Doctrine of Prospective Overruling, appears to be the answer of the Respondent No. 1 the original accused, against the contention being raised by the appellant-original complainant that 'Look to the Law of the present and not to the Law which was holding the field at the time of alleged commission of the offence, the judgment of the trial Court and the judgment of the first appellate Court.2. The Respondent No. 1 came to be convicted for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 16(1)(A) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954, in CC No. 4 of 1983 vide the orders dated 30 July 1983 pronounced by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad. He came to be sentenced to the SI for three months and to a fine of Rs. 500 in default to a further SI for one month. This judgment of conviction and sentence came to be challenged by the Respondent by filing the Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1993 which came ...
Rauf Abdul Majid Vs. Amnabai A. Gafar and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1439
D.G. Karia, J.1. This Civil Revision Application is directed against the judgment and order dated January 24, 1989 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gondal in Execution Application No. 44 of 1988. By the impugned order, the Executing Court directed to issue civil jail warrant against the petitioner for detaining him in civil prison.2. The respondents are the original plaintiffs who filed Civil Suit No. 99 of 1983 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Gondal for recovery of Rs. 9,000/- with interest and costs. Eventually, a decree came to be passed in the said suit for Rs. 9,000/- with interest and costs. Thereafter, the respondents filed Execution Application No. 44 of 1988 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gondal praying for execution of the decree as provided under Order 21 Rule 40 of the Civil Procedure Code by detaining judgment-debtor in civil prison. The Executing Court by its order dated September 17, 1988 ordered to issue notice to show cause why judgment-de...
Arvindkumar Trikamlal Raval Vs. Ratilal Hemaji and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1177
S.D. Dave, J.1. The invocation of the Doctrine of Prospective Overruling, appears to be the answer of the respondent No. 1 the original accused, against the contention being raised by the appellant-original complainant that 'Look to the Law of the present and not to the Law which was holding the field at the time of alleged commission of the offence, the judgment of the trial Court and the judgment of the first appellate Court'.2. The respondent No. 1 came to be convicted for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 16(1)(A) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954, in C.C. No. 4 of 1983 vide the orders dated 30 July, 1983 pronounced by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad. He came to be sentenced to the S.I. for three months and to a fine of Rs. 500 in default to a further S.I. for one month. This judgment of conviction and sentence came to be challenged by the respondent by filing the Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1993 whi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›