Gujarat Court December 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.
Elesh Nandubhai Patel Vs. C.P. Singh and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-27-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ3169; (1997)2GLR150; (1997)2GLR463
N.N. Mathur, J.1. By way of this Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 5-11-1996. The subjective satisfaction of the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad, who directed the detention, is based upon two criminal adventures of the petitioner dated March 10. 1995 and May 20, 1995, and two unregistered incidents of 2-10-1996 and 10-10-1996.2. The petitioner detenue claims to be a reputed business man carrying on the business of building constructions in the city of Ahmedabad. The petitioner says that he is a strong party worker of Bharatiya Janatha Party and a very strong supporter of Shri Keshubhai Patel, a former Chief Minister of Gujarat State. He further says that the day Shri Keshubhai Patel became the Chief Minister, the petitioner was pinching like a thorn in the body of respondent No. 3 viz. Shri Shankersinh Veghela, now the Chief Minister of Gujarat. Immediately after the respondent No. 3 was sworn as t...
Subodh S. Shah and ors. Vs. Director, Food and Drugs, Food and Drugs C ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-26-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Guj83; (1997)1GLR362
ORDERS.D. Shah, J.1. Is human blood a 'drug'? AND Are Pathologists tapping blood from human beings manufacturing 'drug' so as to incur liability to obtain licence under Section 18(c) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940?are the questions posed for consideration of this court in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by some of the Pathologists and Association of Pathologists.2. The respondents, namely, the Director of Food and Drugs has by notices, dated 8th July, 1983 called upon the petitioners individually to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them for breach of Section 18(c) of the said Act inasmuch as they have been carrying on the activities of tapping blood, collecting the blood and of selling the blood for which licence is required'under Section 18(c) of the said Act and since such activity was being carried on by them without obtaining licence, actions were required to be taken against them. The issuance of such notice to various pa...
Sarita D/O Vasudev Ramjibhai Sharma Vs. O.P. Mathur, Spl. I.G.P. (i.B. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-26-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR711
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. 'Whether, in a case wherein the complaint disclosing cognizable offence which is otherwise required to be filed either in the first instance before the concerned Police Station of the area or for that purpose for whatever reasons when allegedly the officer of the said police station may refuse to register the same and accordingly in the second instance it is required to be filed before the appropriate criminal Court and further particularly when either of these two specific alternative remedies are provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, would the High Court even then in such a case be still justified in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction in entertaining the writ petition in nature of the complaint for cognizable offences under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thereby in the first place issuing notice to the respondent to show cause for action against him and appropriate order and in the second place, taking into Court custody the muddamal re...
Kailash J. Thakor Vs. Karman Rama and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-24-1996
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2450
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. Permitted to convert this application into Misc. Criminal Application. Leave to amend the cause title by adding Karman Rama and Amra Hari as party-respondents.Rule. Learned A.P.P. Mr. N.D. Gohil appearing for the respondent-State waives the service of Rule. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is heard and decided today.2. The grievances voiced by Mr. E.E. Saiyed, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner is that, though the application for the cancellation of bail against the respondents-accused came to be filed by the original complainant, as long back as on 5-5-1995 and yet till today, that is to say for about more than one and half years quite surprisingly the same has not been heard and disposed of !! Making good this submission, Mr. Saiyed has invited the attention of this Court to the copy of the Rojkam proceedings annexed to the petition at Annexure 'C', from where it is pointed out that the learned Sessions Judge has ...
Naranbhai Mumayabhai Gohil Vs. District Superintendent of Police
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-23-1996
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1550
S.M. Soni, J.1. Petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order dated 24-4-1985 retiring him on invalid pension.2. The petitioner joined service as an Unarmed Police Constable in the Police Department at Bhuj under the order of respondent No. 1 on 15-1-1977. He was then sent for training for 8 months and was posted at Gandhidham. In the year 1980 he met with accident and his left leg was required to be amputated. However, on applying artificial leg he was then posted at Bhuj in Modus Operandi Bureau (M.O.B.) in the year 1981. He was then sent for V.H.P. Operator training in the year 1982 and was posted as V.H.P. Operator (R.T.P.C.) at Anjar in the year 1983. The petitioner was then made to retire compulsorily by the order of respondent No. 1 dated 24-4-1985. This order of retirement is challenged in this petition.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the said order asking the petitioner to retire on invalid pension is in total disr...
Varshaben A. Patel Vs. District Primary Education Officer and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-1996
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1561
M.R. Calla, J.1. Rule. Mr. Baxi waives service of the Rule for respondents2. The only grievance which has been raised by the petitioner in this case is that, at the time when the selections were held for the post of primary teachers under the District Education Committee of Bhavnagar, the petitioner's application for revaluation of her marks was pending. As a result of the revaluation of her marks which was conveyed subsequently to her on 27-10-1994, her marks were increased by six and all that petitioner wants is that, in the selections which were held for the post of primary teachers under District Education Committee, Bhavnagar, her merit should be considered on the basis of the result of revaluation, i.e., six marks more. The petitioner approached the District Primary Education Committee, Bhavnagar for benefit of six marks and from the office of the Deputy Minister of Education (Technical Education) a letter dated 10-6-1996 was sent to the respondent No. 1 in this regard. The respo...
Babubhai Mandabhai Ahir Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-1996
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1158
M.H. Kadri, J.1. The appellant, by filing this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has challenged the judgment and order dated September 5, 1988, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari, in Sessions Case No. 70 of 1987, by which the appellant accused was convicted of the offence under Section 302 of I.P. Code; and sentenced to imprisonment for life till his last breath.2. The prosecution case is that the appellant who is resident of Village Magod was married to deceased Sheela of Village Pandor, 5 to 6 years prior to the date of the incident which took place any time between 8-00 p.m. of 20-6-1987 and 7-00 a.m. of 21-6-1987. The appellant was residing at Village Magod alongwith his father Mandabhai and mother Diwaliben. Sheela had not given birth to child, and therefore she used to stay for 15 days at her parents' house and another 15 days at her in-laws' house as per the custom prevailing in their caste. The name of the father of Sheela was D...
indramohan P. Arora Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-1996
Reported in: (1997)139CTR(Guj)118; [1997]227ITR30(Guj)
S.D. Pandit, J.Rule. 1. We have heard the learned advocates of both the sides at length, and, therefore, we proceed to dispose of this petition finally. 2. Shri Indramohan P. Arora has filed the present petition against the order passed by the respondent under s. 18B of the WT Act, 1957 on 10th Sept., 1996. 3. The petitioner Indramohan P. Arora is an income-tax payer and he is filing his income-tax returns since prior to 1981-82, but he was not filing WT returns till the year 1992. It is his case that as his wealth was invested in industrial undertaking, he was exempted from paying wealth-tax and consequently he was not filing the wealth-tax returns. It is also his claim that he was under that impression on account of advise given to him, but he subsequently learnt that that advise given to him was not correct and that he was liable to file WT returns and to pay wealth-tax. Therefore, on 27th Feb., 1991, he filed WT returns for the asst. yrs. 1981-82 to 1987-88. He also deposited the t...
Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service Vs. HisamudIn Dosumiya Shaikh
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR579
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Rule. Service of Rule is waived by learned Advocate Mr. H.K. Rathod for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and by learned Advocate Mr. M.B. Gandhi for respondent Nos. 7, 8 & 9. Upon joint request and considering the element of urgency involved in the petition, this matter is taken up for final hearing forthwith.The petitioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service (A.M.T.S.), which is a part of the functioning of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has assailed the ad interim (ex-parte) order recorded by the Industrial Tribunal at Ahmedabad, dated 5-12-1996, by filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of the impugned ad interim order, the Industrial Tribunal granted ad interim injunction in terms of para 7(B) of the complaint filed by the respondents under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act) against the Circular No. 62 dated 30-11-1996, issued for and on behalf of the A.M.T.S. In view of the ad interim injunct...
State of Gujarat Vs. Ghanshyamsinh Ranchhodsinh Vaghela
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR751
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. This appeal by the State of Gujarat is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 6-5-1994, rendered in Special Case No. 4 of 1993 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), wherein the respondent-Ghanshyamsinh Ranchhodsinh Vaghela, on his coming to be tried for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d), (i), (ii), (iii) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was at the end of the trial ordered to be acquitted.2. According to the prosecution, PW-4 Virsinh Ambaliyar, P.I., A.C.B., Ahmedabad, on 9-11-1989 received information that near Narol Highway Road, local police, traffic police, police attached to the Mobile Court and Forest Officers were demanding and accepting the bribes on one pretext or the other from the drivers of the vehicles passing to and fro. On the basis of this information, PW-4 requisitioned services of two Panch witnesses, viz., PW-2 Mahendra Naranbhai, and Sunil Manubhai (not examined) employees se...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »