Gujarat Court February 1995 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.
Ojas V. Khokhadagi and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Excha ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Guj23; [1996]87CompCas419(Guj); (1995)2GLR1891
B.N. Kirpal, C.J. 1. The challenge in these writ petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution is to the grant of membership to the Saurashtra Kutchha Stock Exchange Limited, which is an Exchange which has been recognised by the Central Government under the provisions of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956.2. Respondent No. 1 is a Public Limited Company, having been registered under the Companies Act, 1956. On 24th of April, 1986, it made an application under Section 4 of the said Act for grant of recognition as a Stock Exchange. By Notification dated 10th July, 1989, the recognition was granted. It is after the grant of the said recognition that on 20th July, 1989 respondent No. 1 was registered under the Companies Act, 1956.3. According to the Articles of Association of the Company, which Articles had been approved by the Central Government, the number of members which it could have, were 300. At the time of granting of recognition, 40 members already existed. Theref...
Ashokkumar Manilal Vs. Gandhi Vrajilal Gabrrulal Dessa
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Guj161; (1995)1GLR767
ORDERM.S. Parikh, J. 1. Petitioner herein is the original defendant and the tenant of the suit premises. The respondent herein is the original plaintiff and the landlord of the suit premises. They are referred to in this Judgment as the plaintiff and the defendant.2. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 65 of 1977 in the Court of Civil Judge (SD) at Decsa for obtaining possession of the suit premises consisting of a shop situated at New Deesa on the ground that the defendant was a tenant in arrears of rent for a period of more than 6 months. It was the plaintiff's case that rent of Rs. 50 per month plus electric charges of Rs. 5 per month was payable by the defendant to the plaintiff and it fell due from Ashadh Sud 1 of S. Y. 2029. A total sum of Rs. 2450 by way of rent and Rs. 245 by way of electric charges. In all Rs. 2695 remained due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff resulting into the plaintiff serving a demand notice dated 23rd May, 1977. The defendant did not t...
The Gujarat Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Guj131; (1995)1GLR493
ORDERM.R. Calla, J. 1. Heard learned counsel.2. The petitioner-Company is said to be running in the name of the Gujarat Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Ahmedabad and the petitioner No. 2 is its Director. The petitioners have come with the case that the Company purchased the lands bearing S.No. 219 admeasuring 73957 sq.mts., S.No. 242/1 admeasuring 7689.06 Sq.Mts., and S.No. 242/2 admeasuring 7486.75 Sq.Mts. in the year 1962 for the purpose of putting up plants and machinery. It is also the case of the petitioners that the Prant Officer vide order dated (5-4-75 granted permission for non agricultural use in respect of S.Nos. 395/1 and 395/2 and accordingly residential staff quarters were constructed for the workmen of the Company. It is alleged that the petitioner-Company submitted an application on 14-9-76 giving all the details and the documentary evidence while seeking exemption under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in res...
State of Gujarat Vs. Babu Lavji Jalia
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ683
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. This appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short), the appellant-State has challenged the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Amreli on 25-7-1991 in Criminal Case No. 549 of 1987.2. The respondent is the original accused person against whom the appellant - who is the original complainant filed Criminal case for the alleged offences under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ('the Act' for short) in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Amreli. The food inspector visited the shop of the accused person run in the name of Umiya Krupa Kirana Stores on 10-9-1986 at about 12.40 noon and purchased groundnut oil which was collected in a stainless steel vessel. The sample was then put in a phial and sent to the public analyst for report and upon receipt of the report, it was found that the food sample was adulterated. Therefore, a complaint was filed and the accused persons came to be cha...
S.L. Suchday and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-1995
Reported in: I(1996)ACC45; 1995ACJ714; (1995)1GLR629
J.M. Panchal, J.1. The questions which arise for consideration of the court in the present public interest litigation are: whether a police officer, who has recorded information regarding any accident involving death of or bodily injury to any person, or who has prepared report under Section 158 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, should be directed to forward a copy of the same to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter; and whether the Claims Tribunal should be directed to treat any information or report forwarded to it by the police officer as an application for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? ('Act' for short).2. Mr. Shankarbhai L. Suchday, Notary, District of Kachchh, as well as Mr. Rajesh Premjibhai Thacker and Mr. Urmish S. Suchday, learned advocates, practising at Bhuj-Kachchh, have addressed a letter dated 16.9.1994 to the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court, pointing out that an application for compensation under Section 166(3) of the Act has...
Navsari Vibhag Transport Operators Association and ors. Vs. State of G ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR124
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioners have challenged validity of the Navsari Municipality Token Tax Rules, which have been framed under Section 271 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (here-in-after referred to as 'the said Act').According to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1, Association of Transport Operators for the city of Navsari is formed to look after and protect the interests of its members. It is contended that the procedure required to be followed for framing such rules for imposing token tax was not followed by the respondent-Municipality. It is also contended that Section 271 of the said Act does not envisage levying of such a token tax. Moreover, imposition of token tax under the impugned Rules amounted to double taxation in view of the fact that the petitioners were already paying road tax and other taxes to the Municipality and that even octroi was paid on the goods which were brought in such vehicles. It is stated that there are about 4,000 loading rickshaws a...
State of Gujarat Vs. Sohanlal Trikamchand Shah and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-1995
Reported in: (1995)2GLR1099
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. In this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ('the Code' for short), the appellant-State has challenged the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned J.M.F.C, Valiya on 27-10-1989 in Criminal Case No. 343 of 1986.2. The respondents are the original accused persons, against whom the appellant who is the original complainant filed Criminal case for the alleged offences under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ('the Act' for short) in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C, Amreli. The food inspector visited the shop of the accused person run in the name of Dipak General Stores on 6-3-1984 and purchased 359 gms. of groundnut oil which was collected in a stainless steel vessel. The sample was then put in a phial and sent to the public analyst for report and upon receipt of the report, it was found that the food sample was adulterated. Therefore, a complaint was filed and the accused persons came to be charge-...
Haryana Ship-breakers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-1995
Reported in: 1997(96)ELT541(Guj); (1996)1GLR623
A.P. Ravani, J.1. In all these petitions common questions of law and fact arise. Therefore, at the request and with the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, all these four petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, affidavit-in-reply filed in Special Civil Application No. 640 of 1990 is treated as affidavit-in-reply in all the four petitions. 2. The petitioners are engaged in the business of ship-breaking. For the purpose of their business, they import ship at Alang shipyard in Bhavnagar district. The import duty is leviable on the vessels for breaking up as provided under Chapter 89, Heading 89.08 and sub-heading 8908.00 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The duty is leviable at 40 per cent ad valorem plus Rs. 1,400/- per Light Displacement Tonnage (L.D.T.). Note 2 of the Chapter reads as follows : '2. In heading No. 89.08 'Light Displacement Tonna...
Chanduji Sendhaji Khant Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR84
1. Civil Application came up for orders for relief in terms of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. As the matter relates to reinstatement and payment of wages, main petition, i.e., Spl. Civil Application No. 9739 of 1993 itself is heard on merits today. 2. The short issue raised in this case is whether discretion exercised by the Labour Court in substituting lesser penalty for dismissal imposed upon by the employer-petitioner can be sustained. 3. Respondent workman Chanduji Sendhaji Khant was dismissed from services on the charge that at the time of inspection, he was found to have carried passengers in the bus without issuing tickets. Punishment was imposed after holding inquiry into alleged misconduct. On the complaint having been lodged under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the ground that the order of punishment has been passed in violation of Section 33 of the Act, the matter was adjudicated as if Industrial Dispute has been referred to the Industrial T...
Pushpendra Chandraprakash Sharma Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Guj156
ORDERN.N. Mathur, J.1. Rule.2. Mr. Y. M. Thakkar, learned AGP waives service of Rule for Respondent No. I and Miss. V.P. Shah waives service of Rule for Respondent No. 2. Looking to the facts of the case, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.3. Facts culled out from the petition are that Respondent No. 2 approached before Respondent No. 1 by way of application dated 25-1-1995 under Section 6 of the Gujarat Provisions for Disqualification of Members of Local Authorities for Defection Act, 1986 (which hereafter be referred to as the 'Act') and the Gujarat Provisions for Disqualification of Members of Local Authorities for Defection Rules, 1987 (which hereinafter be referred to as 'the Rules') contending inter alia that the petitioner who has been elected as a Councillor in the election of Gandhidham Municipality and also as a President in the meeting held on 13-1-1995, has not voted as per whip issued by the elected members of Bharatiya Janta Party, and as such he is liable to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »