Gujarat Court July 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.
Naranbhai Amthalal Panchal Vs. Ramchandra Somnath
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-22-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR354
K.R. Vyas, J.1. The appellant as well as the respondent No. 4 and 5 formed partnership in the name and style of Maheshwari Plastics Engineering Works. One partner Mr. D. P. Patel continued as partner upto 15-1-1969, however, he was relieved from 16-1-1969 and the partnership between the appellant and the respondents No. 4 and 5 continued. It appears that a partnership deed was subsequently executed on 16-8-1969. As usually happens in a partnership, certain disputes arose between the partners as a result of which it was impossible for the partners to continue with the partnership firm and as such all the partners appointed the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 who happened to be respectable gentlemen doing business and belonging to the community of the partners as arbitrators under a writing in the form of an agreement dated 7-4-1972 for resolving disputes and winding up work of the partnership, managing the debts, outstandings stock of goods and to do other work as stated in the said agreemen...
Sea Hawk Cargo Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. J.H. Parabia (Transport) Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-22-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR606
S.D. Shah, J. 1. Rule. Mr. S.D. Patel & Mr. Mahendra Vyas appear and waive service of rule on behalf of respondents. With the consent of learned Counsels for the parties matter is heard and decided finally today.2. This revision application is directed against the ex parte order passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Baroda dated 26-4-1994 and 19-5-1994 in Spl. Civil Suit No. 71 of 1994. By application at Exh. 5 filed under Order 38 Rule 5 of C.P. Code against petitioner-defendant the plaintiff in para 15 prayed for following reliefs:(a) That the Hon'ble Court will be pleased to direct the defendant to furnish security for Rs. 16 lacs (Rs. 16,00,000/-) and to produce and place the said amount at the disposal of the Court when required and be pleased to attach before judgment the property described in para (12) of the application.(b) And further be pleased to direct M/s. Marubeni Corpn. Project Office: C/o Asea Brown Boveri Ltd., Som Datt Chamber-1, 5, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 1...
Dada Silk Mills and ors. Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-20-1994
Reported in: [1995]82CompCas35(Guj); 1994CriLJ2874
S.D. Shah, J.1. This group of applications filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure raises an interesting question of interpretation of section 138, read with section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for the brevity). The question raised is as to whether penal or criminal liability sought to be imposed on the drawer of a cheque by section 138 of the said Act is limited to two specified cases of dishonour of the cheque by the banker or whether the section would apply and liability could be imposed in all cases of dishonour of the cheque by the banker for reason referable either to insufficiency of funds in the account from which the cheque is drawn or where the drawer has failed to make arrangement for the funds so that the cheque may be honoured. In other woods, the question is one of interpretation of a penal provision in the statute - should it be strictly construed so as to confine operation of section 138 to the...
Doshi Kantilal Ratilal and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-20-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1706
M.R. Calla, J.1. Common questions of law based on identical facts arise in this batch of four Special Civil Applications and, therefore, we decide the same by this common judgment. Returns have been filed in Special Civil Application Nos. 74 of 1982 and 1093 of 1982 only.2. The petitioners-Firms have prayed for quashing and setting aside the amended bye-laws 20, 23, 24 and 44 and to restrain the respondents from enforcing and executing the aforesaid bye-laws of the respective Agricultural Produce Market Committees. Challenge is also thrown to Rule 49 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The petitioners-Firms or Federations of merchants deal in ground-nut, grains, oil seeds, etc. They are essentially traders or purchasers of the agriculture produce and their grievance is with regard to the levy of the fees (on the agricultural produce) by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, which is recovered from them under the aforesa...
Sanjay Chandrakant Raval and Dr. Chandrakant D. Raval and anr. Vs. Uni ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-19-1994
Reported in: [1996]219ITR748(Guj)
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. Both these petitions raised a common question. Hence, they are being decided by this common judgment. In Petition No. 1342 of 1994 the petitioner, Sanjay Chandrakant Raval, agreed to sell a parcel of land admeasuring 460 sq. yds. to Manibhadra Association for a consideration of Rs. 16 lakhs as disclosed in the agreement to sell, vide a document dated December 1, 1990. In Petition No. 2238 of 1994, the petitioner, Dr. Chandrakant D. Raval and Mrs. Kumudbala C. Raval, entered into an agreement with Manibhadra Association for sale of 460 sq. yds. of plot for a consideration of Rs. 16 lakhs. 2. In both the cases, on receipt of the statement in Form No. 37-I, the appropriate authority constituted under Section 269UD of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, made two separate orders in respect of both the agreements on February 20, 1991, for purchasing the properties specified in the two agreements, by the Central Government in terms of Section 269UD of the Income-tax Act.3....
State of Gujarat Vs. Gobar Rupa
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-19-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR1
B.N. Kirpal, C.J.1. This judgment will dispose of First Appeals Nos. 1424 to 1431 of 1986, 1433 to 1457 of 1986, 1458 to 1482 of 1986, 1483 of 1986 to 1507 of 1986, 1508 of 1986 to 1532 of 1986, 1535 to 1559 of 1986, 1610 to 1634 of 1986 relating to village Veratia in District Jamnagar. The aforesaid lands were acquired for the purposes of Und Irrigation Scheme under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Notification under Section 4 was issued on 30-11-1978 which was followed by Section 6 Notification on 17th. July, 1980 and the award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 27-3-1981. By the said award a sum of Rs. 2.50 per square metre was offered to the claimants for open land. Some of the land had construction upon it. The Land Acquisition Collector relied upon a report of the Deputy Engineer, who had categorised the houses which had been constructed, into four different categories. On the basis of the said report a sum of Rs. 231 per square metre was awarded in respect ...
Bachubhai Ismailbhai Vs. Ismail Haji Ibrahimbhai Malek
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-15-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1271
M.R. Calla, J.1. This Revision Application is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22-1-1981 passed by the District Judge, Kaira at Nadiad in Civil Appeal No. 103 of 1979 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 30-4-1979 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Kaira at Nadiad in Regular Civil Suit No. 478 of 1977.2. The plaintiff-respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of the arrears of rent and eviction of the respondent under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act'). The suit was based on the sole ground of default in the matter of the payment of the arrears of rent for a period over six months and it is alleged by the plaintiff that in fact the arrears were due for a period of five years. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit and against this order of dismissal of suit, an Appeal was preferred by the plaintiff (landlord). The appellate Court has allowed the Appe...
Adarsh Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commiss ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-14-1994
Reported in: (1994)122CTR(Guj)53; [1993]212ITR185(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J.1. The petitioner, Adarsh Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited, Udhana, has challenged the notices dated March 30, 1983 (annexures 'D-1' and 'D-2'), issued by the respondent under Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short). The said notices are issued for reopening the assessments for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, respectively.2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the aforesaid notices are on the face of them illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law. It is contended that for the assessment year 1978-79, assessment was made by an order dated March 31, 1981 (annexure 'A'), under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act. For the assessment year 1979-80, the assessment came to be made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment) by an order dated March 30, 1982 (annexure 'B'), under Section 143(3) of the Act. It is the further contention of the petitioner that, when an order is passed under Section ...
State of Gujarat Vs. Kantibhai Devabhai Vankar and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-14-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR552
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Heard Mr. Bukhan, learned Addl. P.P. for the applicant-State and Mr. A.J. Patel, learned Advocate for the respondents-accused.2. By way of this application, the State of Gujarat wants this Court to condone the delay of 82 days in filing appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25th August, 1989 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Balasinor in Criminal Case No. 461 of 1987 whereby the learned Magistrate acquitted all the four accused-respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 337 and 504 read with Section 114 of the IPC for which they were charged and tried.3. Mr. Patel, learned Counsel, appearing for the respondents, vehemently objected to the grant of this application. He submitted that the State Government has abandoned its right of preferring an appeal, within a period of limitation which was 90 days, against the impugned order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. He submitted that it clearly appea...
Smt. Girija Brij Mohan Sood Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-14-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1656
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order of detention dated 29th December, 1993, passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) ('COFEPOSA Act' for short) against her husband, Brij Mohan Rameshchandra Sood. The order was passed by Shri Mahendra Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, who is specially empowered under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. The said order was passed, as the order states, with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling goods in future, which satisfaction he had arrived at on the basis of the material before him.2. The detenu was served with the grounds of detention on 5th January, 1994 and the documents in support thereof were served on him on 12th January, 1994. On the same day, i.e., on 12th January, 1994, the petitioner made a representation on behalf of the detenu that the order passed against her husband be revoked on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »