Gujarat Court January 1995 Judgments
State of Gujarat Vs. Gobar @ Gopal Tapubhai Dholariya
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR137
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. In this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code), the appellate-State has questioned the legality and validity of the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1988 on 28-2-1991, reversing the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned IInd Jt. J.M.F.C, Junagadh in Criminal Case No. 5068 of 1985 on 27-5-1988.2. The respondents is the original accused. The original complainant - Food Inspector visited the shop of the original accused on 20-7-1985 and found groundnut oil adulterated. The accused is dealing in grossery and cutlery items in the name of Geeta Cutlery Store at Bhesan in Junagadh District. The sample of ground-nut oil was collected and after observing necessary procedure, the said sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. It was reported by the Public Analyst that the sample of ground-nut oil taken by the Food Inspector from the shop of the a...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Industrial Co-op. Bank Ltd. and ors. Vs. Prakashchandra Navnit ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-1995
Reported in: (1996)2GLR445
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The petitioners are the original accused persons against whom respondent No. 1 - original complainant filed Criminal complaint being Criminal Case No. 3899 of 1989 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Rajkot, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120-B, 114 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After verification of the complaint before the trial Court, the learned Magistrate, at Rajkot, issued process for the offences punishable under Sections 420 & 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned order came to be passed, on 6-9-1989. The trial Court directed that the orrences be registered against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and to issue summons returnable on 18-0-1989. The original accused persons being aggtrieved by the said order of the trial Court has preferred this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Crimi...
Tag this Judgment!Yogeshbhai Jashvantbhai Modi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-30-1995
Reported in: (1997)1GLR170
ORDER Food and Civil Supplies Department 14, Sardarbhavan, 6th Floor, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar. Dated the 29th October, 19941. He shall be of good behaviour during the period of his temporary release from his detention (hereinafter referred to as the 'said person').2. He shall not attend to his business nor indulge in any activity which may be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities during the said period.3. During the period he shall not do, directly or indirectly any business in essential commodities nor indulge in any activity which may be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities.4. He shall be liable to be arrested and detained earlier before the expiry of the said period in the event of non-observance of any of the conditions mentioned hereinabove.5. He shall surrender to the Superintendent of the Sub-Jail, Mahesana on the said period unless his order is cancelled earlier in which he is directed to surrender in the order rel...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Haribhai Vithalbhai Thakar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-27-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ240; (1995)2GLR1878
1. The very short but-interesting question which has emerged in this group of 18 appeals under Section 378 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 is, whether the respondent-original accused Manager of the factory is liable for the offences punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 ('Act' for short for committing violation of the provisions of Section 62(1)(a) of Factories Act and also the provisions of Rules 95(1) and 110-A of the Gujarat Factories Rules, 1963 (Rules of 1963). 2. In this group of 18 acquittal appeals, the appellant State of Gujarat has questioned the legality and validity of a common acquittal judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wadhwan on December 29, 1992 in Criminal Case Nos. 208 to 225 of 1987, by invoking the aids of the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 (Code). 3. Since in this batch of 18 appeals, common questions are involved and arise out of a common judgment between common parties,...
Tag this Judgment!Sarvoday Corporation Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-27-1995
Reported in: (1995)1GLR196
S.D. Dave, J.1. An Agricultural Industrial Unit was established on an agricultural land bearing Survey No. 1990/46 situated at Mehsana. The said agricultural unit failed to discharge their obligations and commitments qua certain financial institutions and also qua the Gujarat Electricity Board. An amount of Rs. 5,18,998-78 was the dues of the Board against the said agricultural industrial unit. The industrial unit was sold out under a duress, was dismantled and was removed from upon the agricultural land. A partnership firm, after obtaining a certificate of clear title, after a due public notice, purchased the said agricultural land. It was later on converted into the non-agricultural land and the necessary No Objection Certificate was obtained for the construction of a commercial complex. Later on the commercial complex has come up with atleast 85 shops therein. The builder Corporation had asked for the electric connection in the above said shops, but the same is denied taking resort ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavnagar Municipality Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-27-1995
Reported in: (1995)2GLR1615
Rajesh Balia, J.1. By this petition the petitioner-Bhavnagar Municipality seeks for a writ of prohibition against the respondent No. 1 from proceeding with the application moved by the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for deciding the controversy raised before me are that the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 claiming themselves to be primary teachers of the schools run by the respondent Municipality filed an application under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act for making recovery of their salary from the petitioner. On an earlier occasion disputes of the similar type having been raised between the parties the Municipality has contested its liability to pay salary of the primary teachers employed at various schools run under its jurisdiction on the ground that the Municipality is not the employer and it is the responsibility of the Administrative Officer to make the payment. That plea having been r...
Tag this Judgment!Arunkumar Ramanlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Guj195
ORDERM.R. Calla, J.1. Heard learned Counsel.2. The exemption under Section 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short) was granted to the petitioner in respect of Plot Nos. 525 and 511, on 20th December, 1983, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall have to commence the work within a period of one year from the date of the order of exemption and shall be required to complete the construction within a period of five years fromthe date of the order of exemption. The petitioner did not start the construction work within a period of one year and a show cause notice dated 4th April, 1986 and a further show cause notice dated 21st July, 1989 were given to him, that the petitioner had failed to comply with the condition on which the exemption was granted. The Competent Authority then passed an order on 16th March, 1993, cancelling the exemption in respect of Plot No. 525 only. The exemption was not cancelled in respect of Plot No. 511 because the p...
Tag this Judgment!Mohansingh Gurucharansingh Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Guj80
ORDERM.R. Calla, J. 1. These four Special Civil Applications involve common questions of fact and law and, therefore, all these four Special Civil Applications are being disposed of by this common Judgment.2. Originally one Shri Chhotalal Patel held the land bearing S. No.-350 admeasuring 2 Acres and 21 Gunthas situated in the St. of village Dani Limda. After the death of Shri Chhotalal Patel, the land was inherited by his four sons, namely, Hiralal, Rameshbhai, Naranbhai and Umedbhai and they inherited about 1076 sq. mts. of land as alleged by the petitioners and it has been given S. Nos. 350 2/1, 3502/2, 3502/3, and 350 2/4. It is the case of the petitioner Mohansingh in Special Civil Application No. 654 of 1985 that he with his brothers Amriksingh, Gajendrasingh and Smt. Gurudarshankaur i.e. wife of his yet another brother Bhupendrasingh had purchased the land bearing S. Nos. 350 2/1, 350 2/2, 350 2/3 admeasuring 3228 sq. mts. from Rameshbhai, Hiralal and Naranbhai respectively by t...
Tag this Judgment!Kishorebhai Bhailalbhai Patel Vs. Development Commissioner of the Stat ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-1995
Reported in: (1995)2GLR1502
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order of the Additional Development Commissioner dated 11-4-1994 passed in Appeal under Section 49(3) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, dismissing the appeal which was preferred against the order of the District Development Officer, Bharuch, removing the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch of Pratapnagar Gram Panchayat.2. A show-cause notice was given to the petitioner on 27-4-1992 under Section 49(1) of the said Act, for giving him an opportunity of being heard in connection with the proposed action. It was alleged in the show-cause notice that the petitioner had not taken any step for recovery of the amount of Rs. 51,000/- from one Mahendrabhai Vasava, who was given 'Octroi Ijara' for the year 1989-90 for a sum of Rs. 76,000/-. It was alleged that the petitioner had not taken any action as per the conditions of 'Octroi Ijara' against the contractor and had not cancelled the contract as a result of which a sum of Rs. 50,000/- ...
Tag this Judgment!Ambaji Gram Panchayat Vs. Manubhai J. Suthar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR109
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. Rule. Mr. Munsha waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent. At the instance of the Learned Counsel for both the sides, this matter is being finally decided.2. The petitioner Panchayat challenges the orders dated 11th January, 1993 and 10th May, 1993 passed by the respondent Taluka Development Officer, suspending various resolutions of the Gram Panchayat. By order dated 11th January, 1993 various resolutions from year's 1983 owards of the Gram Panchayat under which appointments were given to the posts under the Panchayat were suspended. On 20th February, 1993 the Panchayat made other resolutions which are at Annexure 'H' to the petition. From amongst these resolutions, resolution Nos. 164, 165, 172 and 173 were suspended by the respondenl by his order dated 10th May, 1993 on the ground that they were not proper.3. Amongst the resolutions which were made on 20th February, 1993 the resolution No. 164 under agenda No. 9 was passed for filing an appeal agains...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »