Gujarat Court November 1995 Judgments
Mohanlal Amarji Marwadi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-29-1995
Reported in: (1996)2GLR200
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. Mohanlal Amarji Marvadi, by this appeal from jail has brought under challenge the impugned judgment and order dated 21st April, 1995, rendered in Atrocity Criminal Case No. 28 of 1994, passed by the learned City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, wherein he on his coming to be tried alongwith other three co-accused persons for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 376, 342 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 3(1)(iii) and 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was convicted for the same (alongwith other co-accused) and sentenced to suffer (i) R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default to undergo further R.I. for six months; and (ii) R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to undergo further S.I. for 1 month for the said two offences respectively.2. To state the earliest and afresh prosecution case as it gets unfolded through the F.I.R. (Exh. 52) lodged by PW-4 Man...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chanchalben
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-27-1995
Reported in: [1996]220ITR24(Guj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue the following three questions of law have been referred to this Court for its opinion by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', which arose out of its order in ITA No. 1989/Ahd/77-78 for the asst. yr. 1972-73 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was liable to pay capital gains tax only on 1/9th of the compensation because of partial partition of the HUF of Natverlal M. Dudhia 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in deciding the question of taxing the capital gains as it did without considering the contention of the Revenue that blending of the property by the assessee through declaration was not valid 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a female member can throw or blend her personal property into the common stock of HUF ?' 2. The facts necessary for the present purposes, as fo...
Tag this Judgment!Meeta J. Mehta Vs. Valsad-dang GramIn Bank and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-27-1995
Reported in: (1996)2GLR517
C.K. Thakker, J.1. At the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner name of respondent No. 2, Inquiry Officer, is deleted. Original respondent No. 1 will now be the sole respondent. Rule. Mr. K.I. Shah, learned Advocate, appears for the respondent and waives service of rule. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioners, for directing the respondent to allow the petitioner to engage a legal practitioner and only thereafter to proceed with the enquiry instituted against her. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she was service as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in Valsad-Dang Gramin Bank at Vandervela Branch, Taluka Vansda, District Valsad. She was placed under suspension and was facing departmental enquiry for alleged misconduct. A charge-sheet was issued to her on September 1, 1995 wherein it was alleged that irregularities were committed by her in about 73 incidents when she was at Valsad Branc...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramanbhai Kachrabhai Raval and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-23-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ524; (1996)1GLR553
N.J. Pandya, J.1. Amendment allowed. This appeal has been preferred on all counts by the insurance company which ordinarily it would not be permitted to do. The company, however, had taken precaution before M.A.C.T. (Aux.) of Kheda at Nadiad in M.A.C. Petition No. 1237 of 1990 to obtain permission by filing application Exh. 41 and the learned advocate, Mr. Parikh, on behalf of the appellant was, therefore, heard on all points.2. The first point raised was that the F.I.R. indicates an intentional act on the part of the driver of the offending truck No. GRT 4728. However, copy of the F.I.R. shown to us by the learned advocate does not show any intentional act at all and the learned Tribunal Judge, while dealing with this aspect under issue No. 1, has, in our opinion, correctly dealt with the situation. A faint attempt was made to make out that the F.I.R. relied on for the purpose is not the one which was submitted by the autorickshaw driver. However, the company itself is relying upon it...
Tag this Judgment!Continental Construction Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-23-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR651
R.A. Mehta, Actg. C.J.1. Ahmedabad Baroda Express Highway was to be constructed and six contracts Nos. 5 to 10 for works of about Rs. 77 crores were entrusted to the appellant-petitioner. The works were to start in May/June 1987 and the stipulated dates of completion were January/February 1992 (57 months). The dates of completion were revised and the revised date was 31st December 1994. During this period, notices were issued from time to time under Clause 46 and on 19th August 1994, notices were issued under Clause 47 of the contract agreements. Ultimately, on 28th December 1994, by interim notices, the contractor was ordered to be expelled from the contract site. The contracts expired on 31st December 1994. As a result of this, the Government entered the site and sought to encash the bank guarantee by making demand to the bank. It is stated that the bank guarantee in respect of these six contracts are for about Rs. 15.11 crores.2. The appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226...
Tag this Judgment!Chimanbhai P. Trivedi Vs. B.R. Katara, Director of Agricultural Market ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR512
R.A. Mehta, Actg. C.J.1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, Rule is heard today.1. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Director under Section 3 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 whereby the Director has been given the authority to decide the question as to whether a person is an 'agriculturist' or not. That decision is appealable to the State Government and the decision under Section 3 is final. The Director held that the petitioner is not an 'agriculturist'. The petitioner has preferred this petition without resorting to the appellate remedy.2. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that there is an alternative efficacious remedy by way of regular statutory appeal and, therefore, the High Court should refuse to exercise the jurisdiction.3. This matter has arisen in peculiar facts. The petitioner who has been held to be an 'agriculturist' for all these years and who has been successively elected as a member of Agricultural Produce Market Com...
Tag this Judgment!Shilpa Park Co.-op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Surat Urban Development A ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)2GLR707
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The challenge in this Special Civil Application is the Town Planning Scheme framed pertaining to the City of Surat for the area Karanj, Scheme No. III, Survey No. 7, Plot No. 4.2. Petitioner is a registered Co-operative Housing Society having more than 190 members, who are the plot-holders of the society. The say of the petitioner-society is that it purchased the land bearing survey No. 7 of village Karanj, for the purpose of construction of residential houses.3. The original owner of the land executed Satakhat (Agreement to sale) in favour the Co-operative Housing Society on 25-6-1975, and delivered the possession of the said land. As the said piece of land was within the territorial jurisdiction of Karanj Panchayat, permission was sought from the said Panchayat before raising the construction. Now the survey No. 7 which was given the original plot number as plot No. 4, on reconstitution, has been marked as Plot No. 5 and 8, has been reserved for garden and the other...
Tag this Judgment!Raghuvir Prasad Mali, Secretary, Maha Gujarat Mill Mazdoor Union Vs. t ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-21-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR533; (1996)IILLJ546Guj
M.R. Calla, J. 1. Rule. Mr. V.B. Patel, and Mr. D.S. Vasavada, learned counsel, waive service of rule on behalf of the respondent. 2. On the request of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 3. This Special Civil Application has been filed by one Raghuvir Prasad Mali representing himself as the Secretary of Maha Gujarat Mill Mazdoor Union, Ahmedabad against the General Manager, The Arvind Mills Ltd., and the Secretary, Textile Labour Association, Bhadra, Ahmedabad. The petitioner seeks the issue of a writ for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal for State of Gujarat at Ahmedabad on 15-4-1995 recording amicable settlement as per the Memorandum of settlement and the Award has been passed in terms of the Memorandum of settlement, which is duly signed by and on behalf of the Textile Labour Association and The Arvind Mills Ltd. 4. On 2-2-1995 the respondent-Company had given a notice under section 42(1) of the Bombay Industrial Relatio...
Tag this Judgment!Yogesh P. Sukhanandi Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-21-1995
Reported in: 1997CriLJ497; (1996)2GLR410
S.M. Soni, J.1. Both these applications are filed for non-compliance of the same order passed on 21 -11 -1991 in Special Civil Application No. 6777/91. By the said order, this Court (Coram: C. K. Thakkar, J.) directed the authorities to decide the application in the light of the observations made in the order with a further direction to decide the same expeditiously and preferably before December 31 1991.,2. We are of the view that jurisdiction under Contempt of Courts Act should not be exercised in favour of the persons who have no regard for the truth. If the order is obtained by suppressing material facts, the party concerned will hesitate to enforce that order and when it is brought to the notice of this Court that in fact and in substance the said order came to be passed on suppression of material facts which were within the exclusive knowledge of the petitioner, this Court should refuse to exercise jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act. So is the case in these application...
Tag this Judgment!Bhil Sampathbhai Sheriabhai Vs. Public Prosecutor, Vadodara and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-20-1995
Reported in: (1996)2GLR605
C.K. Thakker, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner wants this Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by quashing and setting aside the communication, Annexure 'I' by which the request of the petitioner to withdraw prosecution against him was turned down by the District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor, Baroda and by directing him to reconsider the representation of the petitioner, Annexure 'H' de novo.2. The petitioner was holding a licence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and was doing business of running a fair price shop at Anandnagar, Kareli Baug, Baroda. It appears that on August 20, 1987, the shop was inspected by the officers of the Civil Supply Department and certain defects and irregularities were found. 3. In connection with those irregularities, a show cause notice was issued october 17, 1987 wherein it was inter alia, alleged that at the time of inspection, there wa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »