Gujarat Court March 1995 Judgments
Namdev Dangal Vs. Executive Engineer, Sinchai Yantrik Vibhag and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR746
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Rule. Mr. K. M. Mehta, Learned A.G.P. appears for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and waives service of Rule. 2. In this petition, Annexure A order of respondent No. 1 dated 11-1-1994 is under challenge. The order withdrawing present emoluments suffers with the vice of non-application of mind or shows gross arbitrariness in dealing with its employees by the respondents. It states that those work-charge employees who are drawing Rs. 950/- as fixed pay + variable DA, are to be fixed at the minimum of pay-scale of Rs. 750-12-940. Even the 'maximum of pay-scale in which such person are sought to be fixed by Annex. A order, is less than the pay which were being paid by the employees as dailyrated workers. On the other hand, State in addition to basic pay is paying DA to all its employees as a matter of policy and by the impugned order, it is sought to reduce the pay which was being already paid to the daily-rated workman on their being regularised in the pay-scale. The order is no...
Tag this Judgment!Nisar Ahmad Abdulmiya Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-1995
Reported in: (1996)2GLR453
1. Rule, Mr. Kamal Mehta, learned AGP appears and waives service of Rule on behalf of respondents. 2. The facts of present petition, in brief are that the father of the petitioner who was serving as a Primary Teacher in District Panchayat, Kheda, while in service, died on December 28, 1985. The petitioner as dependent, claimed appointment on compassionate ground under the rules of Government claiming himself to be eligible for the same. State Government, by memorandum dated September 13, 1991 at Annex. A, accorded its approval of appointment of the petitioner as Jr. Clerk. However, after almost 10 years of the death of employee and even after 3 1/2 years of sanction by government, the petitioner has not been offered appointment. Finally, the petitioner has been told by the respondents vide letter dated February 19, 1994 that as the authority to appoint is given to the Development Commissioner, respondents cannot do anything in the matter and advised the petitioner to approach Developme...
Tag this Judgment!Anagram Finance Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-30-1995
Reported in: (1995)127CTR(Guj)193; [1996]217ITR22(Guj)
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. Through this petition, the correctness and legality of the order at annexure 'A' dated January 31, 1995, passed by the appropriate authority for purchase of the property in question under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been questioned. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition may be noticed in brief. The property in question is part of the first floor of the building known as 'Sakar-I' complex, situated opp : Gandhigram Railway Station, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad, which is a commercial complex. Respondent No. 2, Dalal Consultants and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called the 'vendors'), are the current occupiers of the said property in question. The vendor executed an agreement to sell that property to the petitioner at a price of Rs. 1,05,08,000 (rupees one crore five lakhs and eight thousand only) (hereinafter called the 'apparent consideration'). The vendors submitted the requisite information as per section 269UD of the Act in Form No. 37-I, da...
Tag this Judgment!Anilkumar D. Gajjar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-30-1995
Reported in: [1996]220ITR470(Guj)
C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner for directing the respondent-authorities to pay interest of Rs. 1,734 to the petitioner for wrongful retention and delayed payment of Rs. 7,750. It is the case of the petitioner that on January 7, 1982, the residential premises of the petitioner were searched by the authorities in the exercise of the power under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The raiding party seized cash amount of Rs. 51,000. On March 15, 1984, the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle, Rajkot, passed an order releasing an amount of Rs. 43,250 but retained Rs. 7,750. An assessment order was passed on March 15, 1984, wherein it was observed by the Income-tax Officer that the petitioner had failed to explain an amount of Rs. 16,474 in connection with two cash entries of Rs. 1,474 and Rs. 15,000, respectively, in the accounts of Asha Industries and Esvi Industries, respectively, in which the petitioner was a partner. The said amount was, ther...
Tag this Judgment!Desai Devang V. and ors. Vs. the Registrar, South Gujarat University a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-30-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Guj96; (1995)1GLR773
ORDERR.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioners-students have come with a grievance against the order of the Syndicate dated 17th April, 1993 holding that these students had adopted unfair means at the S.Y. B.Com. examination in which they appeared in May, 1992 and canceling their results which were declared on 14th October, 1992 as also debarring them from appearing at any of the examination conducted by the University or from filling up terms in any of the affiliated colleges up to the end of the education year 1993-94. A direction was also sought on the respondents to abstain from preventing the petitioners from appearing at the T.Y. B.Com. examination which was to be held from 26th April, 1993. It is common ground that these petitioners were allowed to appear at the said T.Y. B.Com. examination by an order of this Court made in this petition on 23rd April, 1993 and their results were to be declared only after further orders. Accordingly, these petitioners appeared at the T.Y. B.Com. ex...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Billah Ahmad Umarali Sheikh and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-30-1995
Reported in: (1995)2GLR1378
D.G. Karia, J.1. This acquittal appeal is directed against judgment and order dated September 24, 1986 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khambhat, in Criminal Case No. 1322 of 1986, acquitting the respondents-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 65(a)(e)(g) and 66(l)(b) and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'NDPS Act').2. By the charge at Exh. 6, it is alleged that at about 5-30 p.m. on January 21, 1986, the accused persons possessed Ganja weighing 210 kilograms and Charas weighing 87 grams, totally worth Rs. 1,68,206/-, without any pass or permit and in contravention of the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act and NDPS Act at their house, situated at Vaghriwad, Saifibaug in Khambhat and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.3. Mr. K.P. Raval, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for the appellant-State, rais...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupendrakumar Ramanlal Shah and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-30-1995
Reported in: (1995)2GLR1721
B.N. Kirpal, C.J.1. The main challenge in this writ petition is to the proposal of the respondents who are seeking to upgrade some of the slums which are situated on different parcels of land which form part of the scheme which were originally approved under the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954.2. Scheme Nos. 10, 12, 13, 15, 17 to 22, 29 and 31 are stated to have been approved under Section 51 of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954. It appears that on some parcels of land slums have come into existence and with a view to upgrade the facilities for the said slums, notices were issued by the respondents on 23-11-1987 for the purposes of varying the said schemes. It is the said notices and the subsequent action proposed to be taken which have been challenged in the present writ petition.3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that on the Town Planning Scheme being finalised under the provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 65, no amendment can be made by the Executive...
Tag this Judgment!V.P. Singhal, Official Liquidator Vs. Chatrabhujdas Chimanlal and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-29-1995
Reported in: [1996]86CompCas422(Guj)
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The complainant is the official liquidator who had filed Company Petition No. 28 of 1987, in which Bharat Suryodaya Mills Company Ltd. ('the company' for short) was ordered to be wound up by an order of this court passed on March 14, 1989. The liquidator was appointed as provisional liquidator. Subsequently, by an order of this court passed on May 5, 1989, the said provisional liquidator was appointed as official liquidator of the company. 2. By virtue of the provisions of section 441(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short), the winding up of the company is deemed to have commenced at the time of presentation of the petition for winding up which, as such, was presented on February 12, 1987. 3. After appointment of the official liquidator, the complainant had taken inspection of the records maintained by the Registrar of Companies and, during the said inspection, it was noticed that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had been described as directors of the company (in liqu...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. T.P. Steel and Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-29-1995
Reported in: (1995)2GLR1173; (1998)IIILLJ384Guj
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. 'Whether the cases wherein accused came to be prosecuted for the alleged breaches of the relevant rules made under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, read with Section 22 of the said Act in the first instance, can be placed before the Lok Adalat for compromise and settlement, and in the second instance, in case if so placed, whether an accused pleading guilty before the Lok Adalat, on the recommendation of its Chairman, Settlement Board, he can be softly tackled, tempered and let-off by the learned Magistrate merely admonishing them without imposing any penalty whatsoever?' This in short and substance is the question that arises for consideration in the back-drop and context of the acts and circumstance enumerated as under :-2. To state few relevant facts briefly as far as they are necessary--this group of 24 appeals for the enhancement of sentence by the State of Gujarat is directed against the impugned judgment & order dated October 31, 1993, rendered in as many criminal ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Jethanand and ors. Vs. Asapuri Vijay Saw Mill
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-28-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Guj194
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. A short but interesting question which is raised in this appeal is with regard to the effect and interpretation of the provisions of Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('Code' for short) on a subsequent suit for recovery of amount advanced.2. The appellant who is the original plaintiff had instituted summary Suit No. 1556 of 1973 against the respondent-original defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs. 8,750/-in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. The plaintiff inter alia contended that he is the sole proprietor of business run in the name of M/s. Hiramal Udhamal at Hanpura, Asarwa, Ahmedabad. It is his case that as he was friendly with the defendant he had given him short-term loans on account of his stringent financial difficulties. On various occasions, the defendant went on taking loans from the plaintiff and he also made part payments. As per the case of the plaintiff, the defendant had taken the total amount of Rs. 38,000/- between the period f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »