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.
Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. Collector
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-09-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR274
S.M. Soni, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-Agricultural Produce Market Committee body corporate under Section 10 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 ('Markets Act' for short) has prayed for a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash orders Annexure 'A' dated 1st February, 1979 passed by the Collector, Valsad, Annexure 'J' dated 6th June, 1980 singed by the Section Officer, Revenue Department for and on behalf of the Special Secretary, Revenue Department and Annexure 'K' dated 28th September, 1984 signed by the Section Officer by order and in the name of the Governor of Gujarat.2. By order Annexure 'A' land bearing Survey No. 4B admeasuring 2 acres 37 gunthas of town Gandevi was acquired for the petitioner-Committee and the award for the same was declared on 31st July, 1963. Accordingly, the possession of the said land was handed over to the petitione...
State of Gujarat Vs. Hanifbhai V. Nedariya and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-08-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR842
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Banaskantha at Himatnagar on 14th September 1992 in Criminal Case No. 685 of 1991 is under challenge in this appeal by leave of this Court under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code for brief). Thereby the learned trial Magistrate acquitted the respondents herein of the offence punishable under Section 16(1-A)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act for brief).2. The facts giving rise to this appeal move in a narrow compass. Respondent No. 1 herein has his grocery shop situated at Mehtapura, Opposite Bus Stand in Himatnagar. He was inter alia selling turmeric powder in sealed packets. One Yogeshchandra Madhusudan Soni (the complainant for convenience) was appointed as the Food Inspector for the local limits of Himatnagar. He visited the shop of respondent No. 1 herein on 18th December 1990 at about 11-45 a.m. with his helper. He got one...
State of Gujarat Vs. Shankerji Chaturji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-08-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR755
ORDER1. Each of the convicted accused persons is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. From the total amount of the fine Rs. 45,000/- we direct that compensation be paid under Section 357 of the Cr. P.C. of Rs. 10,000/- each to seriously injured persons Jakshibhai Valjibhai Rabari, Bhagwanbhai Nathabhai Rabari, Raghunathbhai Khodabhai Rabari and driver Vithalbhai Chhotubhai Vasava and Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant Gandaji Mohanji Thakor. In default of payment of fine, each of the defaulting convict shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of two months.2. Each of the convicted accused persons is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 149 of I.P.C.3. Each of the convicted accused persons is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months f...
Manharlal Ratilal Tailor Vs. Competent Authority Under Safem and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-07-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1872; (1997)2GLR239
ORDERM.R. Calla, J.1. Rule. Mr. Jayant Patel waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 4. With the consent of the parties these matters are taken up for final hearing today.2. These two petitions are based on identical fact situation involving common questions of law and hence both are decided by this common Order.3. These two petitions have been filed by the relatives of a COFEPOS A detenu against whom proceedings were taken under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'SAFEM Act'). Concerned Competent Authority under the SAFEM Act had passed the orders with regard to the present petitioners in the proceedings under SAFEM Act and the petitioners in both these petitions had lost their Appeal provided under SAFEM Act. Ultimately, the orders by the Appellate Authority under SAFEM Act were passed against the petitioners on 17-6-83. At that time several petitions challenging the validity of the provisio...
State of Gujarat Vs. Sandeep Bhandari
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-07-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR771
A.N. Divecha, J.1. Can a factory owner who exposes his workmen to unsafe working conditions in contravention of the relevant provisions contained in the Gujarat Factories Rules, 1963 (the Rules for convenience) framed under the Factories Act, 1948 (the Act for brief) be leniently dealt with on his pleading guilty to the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Act? To do so will certainly amount to mockery or travesty of justice. It is unfortunate that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate of Court No. 4 at Ahmedabad does not seem to have realised this while imposing sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- on the respondent on his pleading guilty to the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Act read with Rule 61(1)(c)(i) of the Rules.2. It is not necessary to set out in detail the facts giving rise to this appeal. The respondent herein runs a factory in the name and style of Anil Dyechem Industries Pvt. Ltd. It is engaged in production of dyes intermediates. It appears that some accident wa...
Shajul George Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-1996
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1250
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Rule. Mr. Y.F. Mehta appears and waives service of Rule on behalf of State authorities and Mr. H.M. Mehta, appears and waives service of Rule on behalf of Union of India. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of parties, the matters were taken up for final hearing.2. All these petitions have been filed under Public Interest Litigation challenging legality and validity of certain Rules for admission to First M.B.B.S./First B.D.S./ First B. Physio. Courses at the Government Medical Colleges, Pramukh Swami Medical College, Karamsad, Government Dental Colleges and Schools of Physiotherapy for the academic year 1996-97. Reservation of 48% of total seats instead of available seats after deducting 15% of the total number of seats in all Medical Colleges to be filled in on the basis of All India Entrance Examination is challenged. A grievance is also made against twelve payment seats for Non-Resident Indians (N.R.I.) in Pramukh Swami Medical College...
Shailesh Jadavji Varia Vs. Sub-registrar and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR783
C.K. Thakker, J. (Cav.)1. All these petitions have been placed before a Larger Bench in view of an order of Reference made by our learned brother N.N. Mathur, J. on March 23, 1995. When the matters were placed for hearing before the learned single Judge, it was contended that the orders passed by different Division Benches were inconsistent and contradictory. There was also discrepancy and disagreement between Full Bench decisions. The learned single Judge felt that there was some conflict between the Full Bench Judgment, 'in order to reconcile between two Full Bench Judgments and to have a proper ratio decided to cover a field and also keeping in view of public importance of the issue', it was desirable to refer the matters to a Larger Bench. The Full Bench decisions are Gorva Vibhag Cooperative Housing Societies Association v. State of Gujarat 1992( 1) GLR 654 (First Full Bench) and H.P. Dave v. Sub-Registrar, Rajkot 1994(2) GLR 1222 (Second Full Bench). The question is what is reaso...
Rameshchandra Rajnikant Kothari Vs. Gunvantlal Shivlal Shah and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-04-1996
Reported in: [1998]94CompCas549(Guj)
S.D. Pandit, J.Rule. 1. Heard Mr. J. D. Ajmera for the petitioner and Mr. K. D. Vasavada for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Y. F. Mehta learned A.P.P. on behalf of respondent No. 2 at length on the merits. Hence, I proceed to dispose of the petitioner finally at the stage of admission. 2. Original accused in Criminal Case No. 7290 of 1995, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar, has filed the present petition for quashing the said criminal proceedings. 3. The respondent, Gunvantlal Shivlal Shah, has filed the said private criminal case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that a cheque bearing No. 47787 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Surendranagar branch, given by the present petitioner for an amount of Rs. 30,000 has been dishonoured by the bank and, thereafter, he had issued notice dated September 29, 1995, calling upon the present petitioner to pay the amount, but no reply to the said notice was given. The respondent has produced along with hi...
Saraspur Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-04-1996
Reported in: (1997)137CTR(Guj)591; [1997]226ITR533(Guj)
S.M. Soni, J. 1. The following two questions arise for our consideration in this reference : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in disallowing the claim of the deduction of interest of Rs. 14,838 paid to the IT Department under s. 220(2) ?' '2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 19,153 incurred by the assessee for supplying tea, coffee, etc., were not in the nature of entertainment expenditure within the meaning of s. 37(2B) of the IT Act, 1961 ?' Question No. 1 is referred to us at the instance of the assessee while question No. 2 is referred to us at the instance of CIT. 2. The assessee made a claim for deduction of interest paid for delayed payment of tax which came to be disallowed by the CIT(A) and confirmed by the Tribunal. The assessee also made a claim for deduction against expenses incurred for supply of tea, coffee, e...
Jayesh Chandulal Shah Vs. Rajesh Ambashanker Nagar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-03-1996
Reported in: [1998]94CompCas112(Guj); (1997)2GLR1104
S.D. Pandit, J.1. Rule. As the notice was issued to the respondents at the stage of admission and as the matter is heard at length on the merits by giving opportunity to argue on the merits, I proceed to dispose of it finally. 2. The original accused in Criminal Case No. 174 of 1991 has preferred the present application against the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, on July 5, 1996. 3. The present petitioner, the original accused in Criminal Case No. 174 of 1991, was having some transaction with the original complainant, Gujarat Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., of taking their products on credit and towards his dues, he had issued two cheques of Rs. 50,000 each. Those cheques were not cleared and were dishonoured when the complainant had presented them for clearance to the bank, hence the complainant has taken recourse to the provisions of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and has lodged a private complaint against the present revision applican...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »