Gujarat Court August 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. Ahmed Adam Mugal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-12-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR83
S.D. Dave, J.1. The State of Gujarat, approaches this Court with the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the quashing of four criminal complaints instituted against the respondent No. 3 His Holiness Dr. Syedna Mohmmad Burhanuddin Saheb, claiming to be acting Pro-Bono-Publico.2. Section 482 of the Code runs thus:.Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.3. The four private Criminal Complaints which came to be instituted against the respondent No. 3 are the equal of what had happened at Bombay. What had happened at Bombay can best be known from the bench judgment of Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra v. Mohammed Yusuf Noormohammed and Ors. 1990 Mah. L.J. 813. With a deep sense of gratitude I prefer to borrow the ...
Harendra H. Parekh Vs. Superintendent of District Jail and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-12-1994
Reported in: (1996)2GLR302
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of order dated March 8, 1982 passed by the State Government of Gujarat in Civil Supplies Department. By this order it is directed that the original detenus, namely, Shri Navinchandra Zaveri, Shri Dhanraj Fakirchand Zaveri, Shri Dipak Fakirchand Zaveri and Shri Satishchandra Kantilal Zaveri had committed breach of conditions of the order of parole. Thus, they had contravened the provisions of Section 15(5) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 ('the Act' for short). Therefore, it was decided to forfeit the amount of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand) deposited by the petitioner as security of each of them as and by way of penalty. Pursuant to this order the Superintendent of District Jail, wrote letter dated March 15, 1982 addressed to the surety, i.e., the petitioner herein that the entire amount of Rs. 40,000/-(Rupees Forty thousand) deposited by him h...
Bhagubhai Shivabhai Prajapati Vs. Commissioner, Food and Drugs Control ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR399
Soni, J. 1. Rule, Miss Gajjar, learned A. G. P. waives service of rule for the respondents. With the consent of learned Advocates, the matter is heard finally. 2. In view of the successful trap in a criminal case filed before A. C. B. being A. C. B. Police Station Crime Register No. 11 of 1993, petitioner came to be suspended by an order dated 6.11.1993. Said order of suspension is under challenge in this petition on the ground that provisions of Rule 156(c) of B. C. S. Rs. are not followed in the instant case and the order of suspension is bad and liable to be quashed. 3. Mr. Supehia, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, contended before this Court that the petitioner is a non-gazetted Government servant and he cannot be placed under Suspension without the prior permission of the Secretary of the concerned Administrative Department. In the instant case, respondents have not obtained necessary approval prior to the passing of the order of suspension and, therefore, the order ...
Hasmukhlal V. Shah Vs. Bank of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-1994
Reported in: (1997)3GLR1891
J.M. Panchal, J.1. By means of filing this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, i.e., Mr. Hasmukhlal Vadilal Shah, ex-Manager, Krishi Bazar Branch of Bank of India, Rajkot, has challenged legality and validity of order dated March 20, 1990 passed by the Zonal Manager and disciplinary authority dismissing the petitioner from service and the appellate order dated November 1, 1990 passed by the Deputy General Manager and Appellate Authority confirming the order dismissing the petitioner from service. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in Bank of India in the year 1964. The petitioner was promoted as an Officer in the year 1971. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of Officer Grade II in the year 1981. During the relevant period, i.e., 1985-86 the petitioner was working as Manager at Krishi Bazar Branch, Rajkot. 3. Serious irregularities and misconducts were reported to have been committed by the petitioner while working as Manager, Kr...
Sipai Mamdoobhai Dadabhai Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR746
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Having regard to the fact that common questions of law and facts arise in these petitions, at the request and with the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, all these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In this group of petitions, the petitioners - original owners of different survery numbers and different pieces of land - have challenged the legality and validity of the acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to the notification dated April 22,1987 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short). As per the notification, the land is sought to be acquired for the public purpose of North Gujarat University Campus. As notified the Government declared its intention to acquire land of 50 (fifty) different survey numbers, of village Samalpati and 28 (twenty-eight) survery numbers of village Matarwadi, admeasuring about 250 acres, of Taluka Patan, District Mehsana. Af...
State of Gujarat Vs. Bansidhar Narmadashankar Jani
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-09-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR561
C.V. Jani, J.1. These 12 revision application filed by the State of Gujarat against the same opponent, namely, Bansidhar Narmadashankar Jani serving as Agricultural Assistant in the Land Conservation Department, arise from identical orders of discharge issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kutch at Bhuj, in Criminal Cases Nos. 3633, 3634, 4117, 4118, 4119, 4120, 4121, 4122, 4123, 4124, 4125, and 4126 all of 1992, respectively. The opponent is served but he has not appeared. As the opponent has been discharged on the ground of limitation in all the criminal cases, all the 12 matters are being heard and decided together at the request of the learned Public Prosecutor.2. The opponent who was serving as Agricultural Assistant in the Land Conservation Department was charged for the committing offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467 and 468 of I.P.C. After the charge was framed, the opponent submitted applications in the aforesaid 12 cases under Section 239 of the Cr...
N.S. Saxena and ors. Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-05-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR373; (1996)ILLJ717Guj
Divecha, J.1. The grievance voiced in this petition pertains to incorrect application of the principle or rule of seniority be and on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 resulting in heart-burning to the petitioners on account of grant of promotion inter alia to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in supersession of the better and superior claims of the petitioners on the basis of their seniority. 2. In order to understand the nature of grievance voiced by and on behalf of the petitioners in this petition, it would be quite proper to take stock of certain fact situation. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed as Production Operators. Petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 22nd September, 1972, petitioner No. 3 on 10th October, 1972 and petitioner No. 1 on 11th October, 1972. A copy of the appointment order in the case of petitioner No. 1 is at Annexure-A to this petition. It is not in dispute that the appointment orders of the other petitioners No. 1 as reflected in the appointment or...
Salmaben S. Dordawala Vs. Hajar Janab Amil Saheb and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-05-1994
Reported in: (1995)2GLR1799
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner is a teacher in the Primary School run by the respondent-Management. She made an Application No. 207 of 1988 before the Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal complaining that she had not been paid her salary for last four years and prayed that the respondents be directed to pay regular salary to her and to pay arrears from 1-1-1984, as per the revised pay scale. The Management was served and from time to time adjournments were sought and, ultimately, on 18-10-1988, the evidence of the applicant was recorded, and it was adjourned for cross-examination to 19-11-1988. On that day, again the respondent sought adjournment, which was granted. Thereafter also, adjournments were sought and granted and, ultimately, as the respondents did not remain present, the case was decided ex parte against the respondents.2. The case was that the petitioner had not been paid her salary since 1-4-1984 and she was not being paid because she had asked for her full regular salary a...
Popat Mohan Koli Vs. Patel Jasraj Dharamshi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-03-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1449
M.S. Parikh, J.1. The opponent filed a suit against the applicant under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1904 (II of 1906) hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for permanent injunction restraining the applicant from obstructing the opponent from using way to go to his farm.2. The short grievance of Mr. B.J. Jadeja, learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the procedure as prescribed under Section 14 of the Act has not been followed and that has resulted in miscarriage of justice On a plain reading of Section 14 of the Act and upon going through the notice for local inspection, the submission of Mr. Jadeja would hold good. Section 14 reads as under:14. (1) Where a plaint is admissible, the Mamlatdar shall receive and file it. He shall then fix a convenient day and place for the trial of the case, and shall issue, at the expense of the plaintiff, notice in the form of Schedule-A to the defendant. He shall then require the plaintiff to appear with his documents, if any, and wi...
Gujarat Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-01-1994
Reported in: 1996(81)ELT58(Guj); (1995)1GLR738
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the busines of manufacturing aerated waters and soft drinks. The petitioner challenges the legality and validity of Notification No. 203 of 1987, dated September 9, 1987. By this notification the Central Government has withdrawn the 'modvat' benefits granted to aerated waters. Earlier, by Notification No. 83 C.E., dated March 1, 1987 'Modvat' benefit was granted to aerated water also, along with other articles. The petitioner also challanges the legality and validity of letter dated October 28, 1987 written by the Superintendent of Central Excise, AR II, Division III, Ahmedabad. By this letter the petitioner has been asked to reverse the 'modvat' credit taken by it on inputs lying in stock as on 30.9.1987/1.10.1987. As stated in the letter the 'Modvat' credit so taken by the petitioner amounted to Rs. 11,26,995.64 (Rupees eleven lacs twenty six thousand nine hundred ninety five and paise sixty four). By this lette...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »