Gujarat Court February 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.
State of Gujarat Vs. Sunilkumar Kanaiyalal Jani
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2014; (1996)2GLR797
H.R. Shelat, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31-8-1984 passed in Sessions Case No. 141 of 1983 by the then Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol.2. The respondent married Kokilaben, the deceased after his former wife Hansaben died. Hasmukh Ishwarlal is the brother of the deceased, Kokilaben. The respondent and Kokilaben were residing at Gandhinagar in Sector No. 23. The parents, two sisters and brother of the respondent were also residing with them. After the marriage for few months their marriage life was happy and no one had any problem, but later on dissension arose between the two and both were quarrelling often pushing the war-button. Sometimes on the point of ornaments or sometimes on the point of watch or other things, either of the two used to pick a fight. The respondent never missed a chance to nettle Kokilaben and nag her. Continuously she was scorched with invectives. She was treated like a chattel and a b...
Shri Lakhavi Financial Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR355
R. Balia, J.1. Rule. Service of Rule is waived by learned Counsel for the respondents.2. Heard learned Counsels for the parties.3. The petition is for interpreting Section 3A of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Act, 1958 which reads as under:3A. Levy of additional lax: (1) On and from the 1st day of April, 1982 there shall be levied and collected (on all omnibuses which are used or kept for use in the State exclusively as contract carriages) thereinafter in this section, referred to as 'the omnibus' a tax (hereinafter referred to as 'the omnibus') in addition to the tax levied under Section 3, at the rates fixed by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, but not exceeding the maximum rates specified in the table below: ____________________________________________________________________________________________Description of Maximum rate of additional tax1 2_____________________________________________________________________________________________A. Ordinary (i) Monthl...
Kaira District Co-Op. Milk Producers' Union Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: (1996)2GLR478
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. These two petitions raise common questions and at the instance of all the learned Counsels they have been heard and decided together.The petitioners of these two petitions are Co-operative Societies, who have voiced a common grievance that the respondent Government has exceeded its authority in making nominations of three representatives on each of the Management Committees (i.e. the Boards of Directors) of these Societies under the provisions of Section 80(1) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The matters have been argued on the basis of the record of Special Civil Application No. 10206 of 1995 which contains the complete record and the Counsel for the parties in the other petition have referred to and relied upon this petition and have requested that the affidavits filed and the papers produced in Special Civil Application No. 10206 of 1995 should be read in the other petition also. The Counsel appearing in S...
Durlabhji Dhanjibhai Patel and ors. Vs. Competent Authority and Deputy ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Guj197; (1996)2GLR640
ORDERA.N. Divecha, J. 1. The order passed by the Competent Authority at Surat (respondent No. 1 herein) on 19th July, 1984 under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act for brief) as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 2 herein) on 4th October, 1988 in Appeal No. Surat--1557 of 1984 is under challenge in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, respondent No. 1 declared the holding of the petitioners to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 13069 square metres.2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. All the petitioners including deceased petitioner No. 1 filed their separate declarations in the prescribed form under Section 6(1) of the Act. Since the properties shown in the declaration were common, respondent No. 1 processed all the forms together. After observing necessary formalities under Section 8 of the Act, b...
Ratilal Chunilal Solanki and ors. Vs. Shantilal Chunilal Solanki and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-1996
Reported in: (1996)2GLR525
A.N. Divecha, J.1. Entry No. 543 in revenue records with respect to the lands bearing survey Nos. 83/7/1, 83/1/9, 45, 46, 47 (Part), 48 and 50 situated in village Khaerlav, taluka Pardi (the disputed lands for convenience) as certified on behalf of the Mamlatdar (respondent No. 8 herein) by his order passed on 15th January 1982 as affirmed in revision by the order passed by the Collector of Valsad (respondent No. 7 herein) on 7th September 1982 in Revision Case No. 19 of 1982 as further affirmed in revision by the order passed by and on behalf of the State of Gujarat on 24th January 1985 is under challenge in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The entry was mutated in the name of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein in the revenue records pertaining to the disputed lands despite the objection there against raised by and on behalf of the petitioners.2. It appears that the disputed lands originally belonged to one Chunilal Jaichand Solanki (the deceased for c...
Tansukhbhai Bachubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-1996
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2165
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Rule. Service of Rule is waived by learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Y.M. Thakker for the respondents.Upon joint request and considering the facts and circumstances and urgency in the matter, this matter is taken up for final hearing today itself.2. Deceased father of the petitioner had filled form under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 (the 'Act' for short) and also made an application under Section 20 of the Act on 8-2-1978. The competent authority and Deputy Collector prepared final statement under Section 9 of the Act on 12-11-1991. The competent authority at Bhavnagar issued notification under Section 33 of the Act on 14-4-1993. Notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act came to be served on the deceased father of the petitioner on 29-1-1986. Thereafter, another notice came to be served on the deceased father of the petitioner on 6-1-1995.3. The petitioner had filed revision application against t...
Vishrambhai Somabhai Vasava Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-1996
Reported in: (1997)3GLR1833
R.R. Jain, J.1. The fateful incident took place on 27-3-1986 at about 11 a.m. taking life of minor Sukabhai Ambalal, aged about 6 years. According to prosecution case, the deceased minor had gone to take biscuits and while returning the accused saw him on the way. The accused demanded biscuits but the minor refused to give. The accused enraged by negative reply assaulted the deceased with 'tavetha' (a spade type instrument with long handle used for cooking and changing sides of cake). As alleged, the deceased was assaulted with pointed portion giving blows in stomach (abdominal portion), loin and right thigh. After injuring the minor, the body of the injured was thrown into a nearby well. On hearing commotion, the complainant father of the deceased and three others came on the spot and managed for taking out the body of the deceased from the well. With this set of facts, the accused was charged and tried for commission of offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. by the learned Additional Se...
C.N. Pancholi Vs. Government of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-1996
Reported in: (1996)2GLR638
S.K. Keshote, J. 1. Head the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner who retired from the post of Deputy Collector, Revenue Department, filed this petition before this Court challenging the order dated 5.4.1987 ordering him to retire premature. The petitioner was appointed as Upper Division Clerk on 17.5.1959. On 25th September, 1979, he was promoted to the post of Mamlatdar. He was placed under suspension in September 1982. He approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 4072 of 1982 which was accepted by this Court on 27th December, 1982. This Court had directed the respondents to finalise the inquiry report on or before 28.2.1983. Despite the aforesaid direction, the inquiry was not completed. Hence, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 793 of 1983. In May 1983, the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated. Though the inquiry was completed, but did not finalise the departmental proceedings. In the meanwhile,...
Swarupsinh Hathuji and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR557
R.R. Jain, J.1. An offence vide C.R. No. 89 of 1987 was registered against six accused under Sections 302, 326, 324, 449, 143, 147, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act with Rapar Police Station, District Kachchh-Bhuj. After investigation, on charge-sheet being filed, case was registered as Sessions Case No. 2 of 1988 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kachchh at Bhuj, who, after trial convicted five of the six accused, that is, accused Nos. 1 to 5, for offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 and under Sections 326, 324 and 449 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and passed appropriate sentence whereas accused No. 6 - Padhiyar Vankaji Modji was acquitted. Original accused Nos. 1 to 5, aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence preferred Criminal Appeal No. 695 of 1988 whereas the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 721 of 1988 challenging the order of acquittal passed against accused No. 6, Padhiyar ...
Chimanlal Govindji Thakker Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR458
D.G. Karia, J.1. This Revision Application is directed against the judgment and order dated February 28, 1986 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nadiad, in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1985, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anand, by his judgment and order dated 15-3-1985 held the petitioner-accused guilty and convicted him for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. At the outset, it may be stated that the petitioner-accused expired on September 12, 1986. By the order of this Court (Coram: M.B. Shah, J. (as he was then) dated February 4, 1988, the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased-accused were allowed to be substituted as the petitioners. Apart from that, the revision application will not a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »