Gujarat Court March 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.
Maneklal G. Sons and ors. Vs. K.A. Patel and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-08-1996
Reported in: (1996)2GLR737
S.M. Soni, J.1. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Code' for short) to quash the Criminal Case No. 681 of 1985.2. One of the grounds made out is that the complaint filed is barred by limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Code. It is also contended that in view of this fact, Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance and issue process and, therefore, issuance of process is bad and should be quashed.3. Learned A.P.P. contended before the Court that in the complaint itself, a prayer for condoning the delay is made out and no doubt there is no specific order condoning the delay, but issuance of process by the Court should be read as delay being condoned and process is issued after application of mind. 4.Mr. Tirmizi, learned Counsel, contended that assuming that the delay is presumed to have been condoned in view of the order of issuance of process, then also it is bad inasmuch as the delay is condoned without hearing the accused...
Maunir Jatinkumar Shah Vs. Director, Paraplagia Hospital, New Civil Ho ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-07-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Guj35
ORDERM.S. Shah, J.1. At the request of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today.2. The petition is filed by a student who was admitted to the First Year of Bachelor of Physiotherapy Course but he failed to pass at the first year examination even after availing of three attempts i.e. in September 1994, March 1995 and September 1995. The petitioner is now required to leave the course on account of three failures pursuant to the relevant rule which is impugned, in the present petition.3. The relevant rules are at Annexure H to the memo of the petition. Rule 7 (pages 37-38 of the Paper Book) thereof reads as under:B. Physio 7. A candidate who obtains 50% of the total marks in any subject at the examination will be entitled at his option, to claim exemption there from at the subsequent examination. He will be declared to have passed the examination only if he/she passes in the remaining subjects at the subsequent examination. Candidate passing the examination in this ma...
Ramkrishna Industrial Co-operative Service Society, Surat Vs. Ulc Trib ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-07-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Guj134; (1996)3GLR518
A.N. Divecha, J. 1. The order passed by the Competent Authority at Surat (respondent No. 2 herein) on 8th March, 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. 1 herein) on 29th December, 1987 in Appeal No. Surat-601 of 1984 is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, respondent No. 2 declared the holding of the petitioner to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 14,522 square metres. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner held one parcel of land bearing Survey No. 213 in all admeasuring 16022 square metres situated at Udhana within the urban agglomeration of Surat (the disputed land for convenience) on the date of coming into force of the Act. It, therefore, filed its declaration in the prescribed form under Section 6(1) thereof. It wa...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Amit Kumar Kanayalal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-06-1996
Reported in: II(1996)ACC415
N.J. Pandya, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award that came to be rendered by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (No. 2) of Ahmedabad City in Claim Petition No. 47 of 1981. The learned Tribunal Judge, by judgment dated 21.2.1983 had disposed of two claim applications, one of them already referred to and the other one happens to be Claim Petition No. 11 of 1981. The appeal is directed only against the order in Claim Petition No. 47 of 19812. The original claimants of that claim application preferred cross-objections also. They have prayed for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- and as against that, the claim awarded to them is only Rs. 1,61,672 with interest and cost.3. The appellant insurance company has all along maintained that its liability under the policy of insurance will be to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- only. Their case is based on the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 more particularly Section 95 (2) Clause (b).4. It is not in dispute, so far as the contesting...
Bhagwandas M. Tanwar Vs. Satish R. Saini
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR463
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. Bhagwandas Tanwar, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has moved this Court inter alia praying for the issuance of the writ of Habeas Corpus on the alleged ground that his wife Smt. Jagruti with whom he has lawfully married on 24-11-1994, was illegally taken away from his house in his absence by the respondent No. 1 Satish R. Saini who happens to be the brother of Smt. Jagruti.2. When this matter came up for admission before this Court on 28-2-1996, the following order was passed:Notice returnable on 4-3-1996. Mr. S.T. Mehta, learned A.P.P. waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent No. 2. Direct service to Respondent No. 1 permitted. On the aforesaid returnable date, Respondent No. 1 shall produce Jagruti Saini before this Court at 11-00 A.M.3. In response to our aforesaid Notice, Respondent No. 1 - Satish R. Saini has appeared before this Court alongwith his sister - Smt. Jagrutiben. We have recorded the statement of Jagrutiben in ...
Madhavpura Mercantile Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Modern Dye Chem Pvt. Ltd. a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-1996
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas829(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. This judge's summons is taken out for obtaining permission under section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, to proceed with Arbitration Suit No. 17 of 1989, filed by the applicant against the respondent company in the court of the Board of Nominees at Ahmedabad. It is the case of the applicant that it is a secured creditor having priority of claim under section 48 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, under which the society has a first charge upon any immovable property which may have been hypothecated, pledged or otherwise mortgaged by the debtor with the society. According to the applicant, hypothecation agreements were entered into in respect of the goods and machinery by the company in favour of the applicant and a sum of Rs. 41,85,749.88 was due as on September 30, 1988, by the company to the applicant. The applicant, therefore, filed Arbitration Suit No. 17 of 1989 for the recovery of the said amount. 2. The winding up order of the respondent co...
Navyug Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. S.G. Ceotho and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ492; (1997)1GLR190
ORDERN.J. Pandya, J.1. The petitioners are respectively a private limited company and its Director. They have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act on the basis that the respondent Gujarat Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') and its Officers are wilfully and deliberately flouting the order of this Court given in Special Civil Application No. 5261 of 1995.2. The said Special Civil Application was filed against the Board and its officers disputing the claim of the Board as to the dues of disconnected electricity connection which was given by the Board to M/s. Hazari Ispat Ltd. It is an undisputed position that the said old connection was given to the very premises which is now occupied by the petitioner No. 1 Company. It came to occupy the same as a result of auction-purchase knocked down in its favour as Messrs. Hazari Ispat Limited, failed to pay its dues.3. Our learned colleague S. M. Soni, by his order dated 11-5-1995, allowed ...
Executive Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board and ors. Vs. Rohini Oil ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1689
S.D. Shah, J.1. Rule. Mr. M.A. Kharadi waives service of Rule on behalf of respective respondents. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, the matter is finally heard today.2. The respondent-plaintiff in each Civil Revision Application has after instituting Civil Suit No. 11 of 1996 and 10 of 1996 respectively in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Gondal, tendered an application at Exh. 5 under Section 94 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was the case of the plaintiff in the plaint that they are the consumer of electricity under Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and that electricity meters installed at their premises by the petitioner-Gujarat Electricity Board were defective and therefore, they had made complaint in writing that such meters were defective. It is thereafter that the officers of the Gujarat Electricity Board came to the premises of each plaintiff with new meter to be installed ...
Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: (1998)1GLR327
S.M. Soni, J.1. This application is directed against the order of investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('Code' for short) and to quash the charge-sheet submitted by the Police on completion of the investigation.2. Respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint against the petitioner and two others on 21-3-1995 in the Court of J.M.F.C, 3rd Court, Bhavnagar.3. Facts alleged to constitute offences are as under:Respondent No. 2 - complainant is the Commission Agent in vegetables, in particular onion, at Market Yard of Bhavnagar. Petitioner used to purchase onion from respondent No. 2 on credit and every time lump sum payment was made. From the allegation in the complaint, the sale was on credit for a month or so. On 21-1-1994 petitioner purchased onion of the value of Rs. 27,31,739.00. Petitioner had paid Rs. 19,94,322.52 against the same and the balance of Rs. 7,37,417.51 remained due. According to the respondent No. 2, despite repeated demands, false promises t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›