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. Ravjibhai Jethabhai Padhiyar and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR483
R.R. Jain, J.1. Learned Additional Sessions Judge. Vadodara, vide his judgment and order dated 16-8-1984 passed in Sessions Case No. 76 of 1984 acquitted all the four respondents for the offences under Sections 302, 323, 324, 326 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State preferred this appeal. At the outset, we may say that the appeal against respondent No. 1, Ravjibhai Jethabhai Padhiyar, who is the original accused No. 1, abates as he has already expired on 7-9-1987, that is, during pendency of this appeal. Mr. Budhbhatti, learned Advocate for the accused, has also produced xerox copy of the certificate dated 12-11-1987 as an evidence about death of respondent No. 1. In view of this fact, the appeal qua respondent No. 1/original accused No. 1 abates and we need not to examine the evidence in relation to him.2. This matter is notified at Sr. No. 7 in our Board for final hearing (acquittal matters) commencing from 22-1-1996. From the record, we found t...
Shri Ambica Vijay Mills and anr. Vs. Gujarat State Financial Corporati ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR695
K.R. Vyas, J.1. This Appeal From Order under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed challenging the order passed in notice of motion, Exh. 5, by the learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad vacating the ex-parte interim order granted earlier. Respondent No. 1 is the Gujarat State Financial Corporation which disbursed the loan of Rs. 3,40,700/- to appellant No. 2 in the year 1975 for the purpose of purchasing land, construction of building and purchase of machinery etc. after executing the necessary documents. Appellant No. 2 could not carry out the implementation of the project and suffered loss in the business. It, therefore, could not repay the loan amount to the respondent No. 1. It appears that appellant No. 2 thereafter entered into an agreement of sale, whereby it agreed to sell the entire project, including the assets of the firm to appellant No. 1 somewhere in the year 1980. It further appears that under the agreement of sale, appellant No. 1 had taken the liabi...
intezar Ahmed Sultan Ahmed Shaikh Vs. State of Gujarat anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)2GLR554
R.R. Jain, J.1. The appellant/original accused was charged and convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of convenience and brevity and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also to pay fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.)2. The incident occurred on 8-7-1987 in public place, viz., on the main road, near Jamalpur Pagathia, in the City of Ahmedabad. According to the prosecution, on 7-7-1987 the complainant, P.W. 1, Mr. N.B. Rohit, Superintendent of Customs (Preventive), Customs House, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, received secret information that a youngman, named Intezar Ahmed Sultan Ahmed Shaikh, agreed about 25 to 28 years, is dealing in sale of contraband drugs, that is, Charas, in Jamalpur area and on the next day, that is, on 8-7-1986, is likely to carry between 11-30 A.M. to 12-30 ...
Gadani Samir D. and ors. Vs. Gujarat University and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Guj79
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioners seek a declaration that the decision of the respondent authorities to club together the students including the petitioners passing the Third MBBS Examination under the old Course and the students passing the Third MBBS Examination under the new Course for the purpose of admission to the Post Graduate Course in January, 1996, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and pray for a direction that the respondents should allot l/4th of the total seats available for admission to P.O. Courses for the year 1996 to the petitioners and other similarly situated students and 3/4 seats to the new Course students. In the alternative, a direction is sought that the respondents should allot the entire 75% of the total seats for the students seeking admission to P.O. Courses in the term starting from January, 1996. By an amendment in the petition, a declaration is now sought that Rule 1.l(c) and Rule 7.1(v) of the Post Graduate Admiss...
Devilal Goljibhai Shah Vs. K.C. Sagar and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR323
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The order passed by the Deputy Collector (Land-6 Plan) at Himatnagar (respondent No. 2 herein) on 24th December 1982 in Land-6 Case No. 1299 of 1980 as also the order passed by him on 25th March 1983 in that very proceeding as affirmed in revision by the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 1 herein) are under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order of 24th December 1982, respondent No. 2 declared the sale transaction entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 herein on 2nd January 1976 with respect to one parcel of land admeasuring 638.30 square metres from survey No. 145 (Part) situated in Village Charimala, taluka Bhiloda, district Sabarkantha (the disputed land for convenience) to be invalid. By his impugned order of 25th March 1983, respondent No. 3 imposed penalty of Rs. 600/- on the petitioner herein for breach of Section 73AA read with Se...
State of Gujarat Vs. Bachubhai Dadubhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-1996
Reported in: (1996)2GLR777
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad (the Tribunal for convenience) on 5th March 1982 in Appeal No. TEN.A.A. 126 of 1980 is under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. By its impugned decision, the Tribunal upset the order passed by the Mamlatdar of Sanand (the First Authority for convenience) on 31st March 1980 in land Inquiry Case No. 1 of 1979. By his aforesaid order, the First Authority held that the disputed lands did not belong to the respondent herein.3. It appears that the respondent herein was found unauthorisedly cultivating the disputed lands belonging to the State Government. Thereupon, a proceeding was instituted against him under Section 61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (the Code for brief). The respondent was subjected to some adverse orders in that proceeding. The aggrieved respondent thereupon carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal remanded the matter...
Varshaben Bharatbhai Shah Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-1996
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Guj)147; [1996]221ITR819(Guj)
B.C. Patel, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed under s. 269UD(1) of the IT Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts are as under : 2.1 The property sought to be transferred is a plot of land admeasuring 689.22 sq. mtrs. with a bungalow having built up area of 335.07 sq. mtrs. in the society known Satyagrah Chhavani Co-operative Society. The said property is hereinafter referred to as PUC. The PUC has a frontage of 22.60 mtrs. and average depth of 28.57 mtrs. The bungalow on the plot was constructed in the year 1985. The apparent consideration of PUC as disclosed in the transfer agreement is Rs. 47,00,000. The net discounted consideration in terms of s. 269UC(b) r/w r. 48-I works out to Rs. 45,97,819. The Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) has worked out the depreciated value of the building at Rs. 11,63,400 and the scrap value at Rs. 1,36,900. After deducting the depreciated value from the discounted conside...
Gauttamkumar Parshottamdas Libachia Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport C ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR370
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner. Vide advertisement dated 27th July, 1990, published in Gujarat Samachar, applications for the post of Legal Adviser (Departmental Head : Grade-B) were invited by Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). 2. Petitioner has come up with a case that he had submitted his application in response to the said advertisement and he was called for interview alongwith other 25 candidates. After the interview, select list was prepared and as per the case of the petitioner, his name appeared in the said select list. From the advertisement dated 27th July, 1990, it comes out that only one post appears to have been advertised. In para No. 2.3, the petitioner has stated that in the month of January, 1996, he came to know from private sources that his name has been included between one to ten in the select list. This averment has been verified by the petitioner in his affidavit stating 'to the be...
Jayaben Suryakant Modi Vs. Welfare Commissioner and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR60; (1997)ILLJ139Guj
1. Both these matters involve the common question of law as to whether the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board is an establishment so as to invoke the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by the employees of the Board for the purpose of the payment of the gratuity and, therefore, both the matters are decided by this common judgment and order. 2. Facts relating to Special Civil Application No. 342 of 1995 : Petitioner herein was working as a part-time worker with the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board and she retired after serving for a period of nearly 31 years and 7 months on January 31, 1993. The Gujarat Labour Welfare Board refused to pay the gratuity on petitioner's retirement by saying that she was not entitled to any gratuity. The petitioner, therefore, applied before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act vide Application No. 178 of 1993 on April 27, 1993. The Controlling Authority allowed the petitioner's application on August 20, 1993 and directed the payment of Rs.8941.95 Ps...
Kirti Chandulal Shah Vs. Ramesh B. Awasthi and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-02-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2012]; (1996)IILLJ1090Guj
ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Shri R.V. Desai for the petitioner and Shri. K.V. Ghadia for the respondent. The petitioner herein as one Kitibhai Chandulal Shah, Managing Partner of one Kirti Weaving Factory. The respondent is Rameshbahi Babubahi Avasthi, who has been a workman working in a firm known as Sidharth Textiles. It is the case of the respondent that he was wrongfully terminated from service and therefore, on his raising a dispute reference came to be made to the Labour Court at Ahmedabad being Reference (LCA) No. 1850 of 1992. During me course of hearing of that Reference, certain orders came to be passed. They are sought to be challenged by the petitioner Kirtibhai Chandulal Shah, Managing partner of Kirti Weaving Factory.2. It is the case of the petitioner that Kirti Weaving Factory has nothing to do with the pending Reference. That is not even the case of the respondent workman. The case of the respondent-workman that he is a workman of Sidharth Textiles. Shri. Desdai, lea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »