Gujarat Court October 1996 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.
Satishkumar Jayantilal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-30-1996
Reported in: [1998]92CompCas344(Guj); (1997)3GLR2041
S.D. Pandit, J.Rule. 1. Satishkumar Jayantilal Shah, the original accused in Criminal Case No. 2361 of 1992, on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 9, Ahmedabad, has filed the present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. The petitioner has been prosecuted by respondent No. 2 for the alleged offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by alleging that the present petitioner had taken goods worth Rs. 1,43,248.40 from respondent No. 2-company, Unipole Plastics Pvt. Ltd., in the period running between January 10, 1992, and February 8, 1992, and that towards the said dues four cheques bearing Nos. 384226, 384246, 384243 and 384249, dated February 15, 1992, March 15, 1992, March 16, 1992, and March 25, 1992, for the respective amounts of Rs. 46,926.20, Rs. 1,234.90, Rs. 46,920.20 and Rs. 48,168.10 were given and that the said cheques were presented to respondent No. 2's bankers and they were dishonoured by e...
The Divisional Controller, G.S.R.T.C., Rajkot Vs. Maganbhai G. Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-29-1996
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ897Guj
Rule. 1. Service of rule is waived by learned Advocate Mr. Rathod for the respondent. 2. In this petition, the petitioner-Corporation has questioned the legality and validity of the award of the Labour Court in Reference No. (LCS) No. 315190 whereby the petitioner came to be reinstated with continuity of service and with 75 per cent of the backwages. 3. The respondent-workman was depart-mentally dealt with in domestic inquiry on the charge of remaining absent for long without proper procedure. His services came to he terminated which on a reference came to be quashed by the Labour Court by award dated January 25, 1996. 4. The respondent, a conductor of the petitioner-Corporation contended that he had to go on long leave on medical ground as he was suffering from tuberculosis. There was also a transfer order whereby the respondent came to be transferred from Surat to Surandranaggr and the respondent workman was relieved on May 15, 1986 with a specific direction to report at the transfer...
State of Gujarat Vs. Krushnakant Shantilal Pandya and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-29-1996
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2094
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate of Court No. 9 at Ahmedabad on 18th October 1991 in Criminal Case No. 3176 of 1989 is under challenge in this appeal by leave of this Court under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the New Cr. P.C. for brief). Thereby the learned trial Magistrate acquitted the respondents herein as the accused of the offences punishable under Section 409, Section 468 read with Section 464, Section 477-A and Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the I.P.C. for brief).2. The facts giving rise to this appeal move in a narrow compass. Respondent No. 1 herein was the Chairman of the Gujarat State Khadi Gramodyog Karmachari Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. (the Society for convenience) and respondent No. 2 herein was its Secretary and respondent No. 5 herein was its Accountant at the relevant time during the period from 1983 to 1988. It does not become clear from the record as to wh...
Urmila Naresh Mittal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-29-1996
Reported in: (1998)3GLR2438
M.R. Calla, J.1. These three Special Civil Applications have been filed on behalf of the detenu concerned in each of these three cases, i.e., Shri Naresh Ramkumar Mittal, Surendra Ramkumar Mittal and Rajesh Ramkumar Mittal, through their wives, namely, Ms. Urmila N. Mittal, Ms. Manju S. Mittal and Ms. Priti R. Mittal respectively. These three petitioners have challenged the detention orders passed against their husbands separately in each of these three petitions on 15th January, 1996, 15th January 1996 and 12th January 1996 respectively by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, as specially empowered under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, which will be hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA Act'. All these three orders have been signed by Shri K.L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India. The detention orders against the three detenus residing at Mitta...
Vishnubhai Nanalal Suthar and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-28-1996
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1018
N.J. Pandya, J.1. The incident leading to the filing of the appeal happened on 30-11-1989 at about 8-00 p.m. The manner of its starting is peculiar. The case of the prosecution is that it was accused No. 2 himself who informed the police about the injured person having been thrown into his hospital. However, the police was informed immediately by 8-00 p.m. Before police was informed, accused No. 2 had contacted his friend Dr. Kantibhai Mohanlal Patel, P.W. 3, Exh. 20, an Orthopedist, who in turn, according to his deposition, contacted Dr. Dave, Superintendent of Sarvajanik Hospital, Modasa. The common advice of both these doctors to accused No. 2 was that he should inform the appellants and thereafter should start the treatment.2. Accused No. 2 is an Orthopaedic Surgeon and is running a hospital in the name and style of Navdeep Hospital at Modasa, District: Sabarkantha, Himmatnagar. The deceased Tarachand was eventually brought to the said trust hospital and his treatment commenced. Th...
Election Officer and ors. Vs. Dharamshibhai Muljibhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-25-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR589
M.H. Kadri, J.1. Rule. Mr. Yogesh Thakker, learned Advocate waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent in each Revision Application. In view of the consent of learned Counsels appearing for the parties and having regard to the urgency involved in the matters, these Revision Applications are taken up for final hearing today. As common questions of facts and law are involved in all these matters, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners, who are authorised to hold election to elect members of Rohishala Gram Panchayat, Taluka Botad, Dist. Bhavnagar, have filed present Revision Applications challenging common judgment and order dated 22-10-1996 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Bhavnagar in Misc. Civil Appeal Nos. 192 of 1996, 193 of 1996, 194 of 1996, 195 of 1996 and 196 of 1996, whereby the appeals filed by the petitioners are dismissed and mandatory ad interim injunction dated 18-10-1996 granted by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Bhavnagar below...
Padmaben Chandulal by Her Heirs Bharatkumar and ors. Vs. Assistant Col ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-24-1996
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2386
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The petitioners, in all five, purchased the land of Survey No. 1/Paiki admeasuring 12 gunthas of Umarwada village in Choryasi Taluka, Dist. Surat from the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 under five separate sale deeds each for 300 sq. yds. of the land for a consideration of Rs. 6,000/-. These sale deeds were registered on 14th April, 1969. The respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 purchased the land in question from Surat Parsi Panchayat Trust by registered sale deed of 14th April, 1969 for a consideration of Rs. 27,000/-. In para No. 1 of the Special Civil Application, the date of sale deeds of the land has been given to be 14th April, 1979, but both the Counsels for the parties are in agreement that this date is 14th April, 1969. These are the errors which are being made normally in the pleadings in this Court. Under the sale deed dated 14th April, 1969 executed by the trust in favour of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, the area of the land sold was stated to be 15,000 sq. yds. and out of ...
Chandrakant Dahyabhai Fudnawala Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-24-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR36
S.M. Soni, J.1. In response to the notice issued by this Court, one Mr. R.S. Valvi has filed affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent No. 1. Heard the learned Advocates.By this petition, petitioners have challenged legality of notification under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act' for short) dated 7-12-1995 and the proceedings arising therein.2. Of the numerous contentions challenging the same, one is that Section 6 notification is issued after the lapse of one year of issuance of notification under Section 4 and, therefore, in view of first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6, said notification is barred and void ab initio and the proceedings commenced on the basis of the same are, therefore, illegal and bad. It will be relevant to state first the facts to appreciate this contention. Date of Section 4 notification is 29-11-1994. It was published in the newspapers on 2nd and 3rd December 1994. It was placed on the Notice Board of Mamlatdar on 7-12-1994. It was publishe...
Rayalseema Agro Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-23-1996
Reported in: [1998]94CompCas363(Guj); (1997)3GLR2343
S.D. Pandit, J.Rule. 1. In these three criminal revision applications, the petitioners before me are one and the same and the respondents are also one and the same. Though these three revision applications arise out of three private complaints bearing Nos. 3835 of 1991, 3498 of 1991, and 3497 of 1991, the question involved in these petitions are one and the same and, therefore, they are heard together. I, therefore, proceed to decide all these revision applications by this common judgment. 2. I have given opportunity to both the sides to argue the applications on the merits fully and I have heard them fully and, therefore, I proceed to dispose of these applications finally by this judgment. 3. Respondent No. 2, Deepak Chimanlal Shah, had lodged the above three private complaints for the commission of the alleged offences punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In all these three cases the present petitioners who were accused in those three cases, gave an applica...
Balasinor Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2056
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner, a co-operative bank, filed this writ petition before this Court feeling aggrieved of the decision and order dated 4th March 1987 passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Co-operation Department, Gujarat, under which directions were given to the petitioner to supply copy of the audit memo for the year 1984-85 to the respondent No. 4.2. The impugned order has been passed by the aforesaid authority on the revision application filed by respondent No. 4. Section 33 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1961') provides that every member of a society shall be entitled to inspect, free of cost, at the society's office during office hours or any time fixed for the purpose by the society, a copy of the Act, the rules and the bye-laws, the last audited annual balance-sheet, the profit and loss account, a list of the members of the committee, a register of members, the minutes ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »