Gujarat Court April 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.
Acharyashree Mahaprabhujiniranavaswala Bethak Mandir Trust and ors. Vs ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR307
N.N. Mathur, J.1. By way of this Special Civil Application, the petitioners have challenged the order of the learned Charity Commissioner, State of Gujarat dated 14-2-1995 passed in Misc. Application No. 55 of 1994, whereby he allowed the application filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 41(A) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1950) and directed that they shall continue as trustees as far as they are not terminated legally as the trustees and further a meeting of all the trustees registered in the P.T.R. should be called/convened and appointment of new trustees should be made as per the constitution and further direction was given that change report in this behalf should be produced in the office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner at Nadiad.2. Petitioner No. 1 Acharyashri Mahaprabhujini Ranavaswala Bethak Mandir Trust, Godhara, District Panchmahals is a public trust registered under the provisions of the Act of 1950 bearing Registr...
Dhirubhai Madaribhai Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)2GLR156
J.M. Panchal, J.1. Rule 2. M.S.T. Mehta, learned A.P.P. waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the application is ordered to be heard today.Whether the sentence imposed under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code takes effect from the date of conviction under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code or from the date of acquittal of convict by the High Court for the offence of which he was convicted and escaped from custody, in which he was lawfully detained, is the question which arises for consideration of the Court in this application which is submitted by prisoner Dhirubhai Madaribhai Patel through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Baroda.3. order to appreciate the context in which the abovementioned question arises for consideration, it would be relevant to notice certain facts: In Sessions Case No. 74 of 1987 prisoner Dhirubhai Madaribhai Patel was tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian...
Janardan D. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR50
A.N. Divecha, J.1. Practically identical orders are challenged in all these petitions. Common questions of law and fact are found arising in all of them. I have, therefore, thought it fit to dispose of all of them by this common judgment of mine.2. The petitioner in each case has challenged the order passed by the Deputy Collector of Dabhoi sometime in August/September 1983 as affirmed in appeal by the Collector of Baroda sometime in February 1984 as affirmed in further revision by the State Government (the respondent herein) by the order passed sometime on 11th January 1988. By his impugned order, the Deputy Collector at Dabhoi cancelled the mutation entry made and certified in the record of right pertaining to the subject-matter in each petition sometime during April to September 1981.3. The facts giving rise to these petitions move in a narrow compass. Each petitioner purchased the respective subject-matter of each petition by a registered sale deed executed during March and April 1...
Manubhai Ishvarlal Vs. Surat Municipal Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-19-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR1
B.C. Patel, J.1. The petitioners, who are occupying a building at Sural, have filed these petitions praying to quash and set aside the special notices, bills including education cess bills and the attachment notices as the same are issued without authority of law.2. Short facts are as under:The petitioners are occupying part of a building bearing registration No. 1156-57 and 1160 of Ward No. 9, Surat. It is contended by the petitioners that by order dated 5-12-1990 at Annexure 'B' to the petition, permission was granted for construction.Paragraph 2.6 of Spl. C.A. No. 283 of 1996, which is ambiguous, is reproduced verbatim as under:2.6 The petitioners submit that the petitioner firm started construction of the building in the year 1991 and that 70% work of the construction work with the basement, ground floor and the second floor have been completed in the year and still, construction is yet to be completed and the premises Nos. 104 and 105 on the first floor and also at the premises No...
Chhotubhai Vallabhbhai (Decd.) Through His Heirs and Lrs. Dhaniben and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)2GLR729
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is that the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by its order dated 29-10-1993 has committed illegality in quashing and setting aside two concurrent and consistent judgments recorded by Mamlatdar & A.L.T., Gandevi, in Tenancy Case No. 70-B-5256 of 1984 and confirmed in Tenancy Appeal No. 1 of 1990 by the Deputy Collector on 15th January 1991.2. A few material facts leading to the rise of the present petition may be narrated at this juncture first. The petitioners are the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Chhotubhai Vallabhbhai. According to the case of the petitioners, deceased Chhotuabhai was a tenant under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('the Tenancy Act' for short) in respect of agricultural lands bearing survey No. 377 admeasuring 30 gunthas originally belonging to Pragjibhai Dahyabhai Naik and Dhirubhai Dahyabhai Naik. Dhirubhai Dahyabhai Naik ...
R.M. Joshi Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-1996
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1267
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in this petition the order of the Government dated 6-11-1985 ordering reduction of Rs. 100/- per month with permanent effect from his pension. This order has been passed after holding departmental inquiry. The charge-sheet was given to the petitioner on 15-2-1982. The petitioner retired on 28th February, 1982. The departmental inquiry initiated under Rule 6 of the Gujarat Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 was converted into one under Rule 189-A of the Bombay Civil Services Rules. The petitioner filed reply to the charge-sheet. Special Officer for departmental inquiry was appointed for inquiry. On 28th July 1982, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the State Government and the Inquiry Officer found that the Government has not suffered any loss as no payment was made to the agriculturists, but recorded finding of guilt of negligence of the petitioner. On 5-9-1983, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as ...
State of Gujarat Vs. Siddik Haji Ibrahim Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-1996
Reported in: (1996)1GLR798
H.R. Shelat, J.1. By this application, the State has brought the order dated 30-11-1994, passed by the then learned Additional Sessions Judge at Vadodara, in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1994 on his file, setting aside the order dated 12-5-1994, passed by the then Dy. Conservator of Forest at Chhota-Udepur, and directing the petitioner to hand over the teak wood seized together with Rs. 1,000/-, the amount of penalty, to the opponent, under challenge.2. Owing to Narmada Dam Project certain lands and many villages were likely to be immersed in water. The Government of Gujarat planned for the rehabilitation of those affected not only providing lands elsewhere but building materials and some amounts also. The persons affected were permitted to take wreckage of their huts, and trees grown on their lands. Kanubhai Shankerbhai, Naika Jugla Vasava and others affected, migrated from Sinduri a Village in Dhule District of Maharashtra State to Suratalav/Tarsada along with wreckage, i.e., baulk, joi...
M.M. Ashrafi Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR543
M.R. Calla, J.1. This bunch of eight Special Civil Applications is based on identical facts and involve common questions of law and hence all these petitions are decided by this common judgment and order.2. Initially Special Civil Application No. 8840 of 1989 was filed jointly on behalf of 8 petitioners on 27-12-1989. On that very day, when the matter came up before the Court, leave was granted to file separate petitions for petitioner Nos. 2 to 8 and in terms of Court's order dated 27-12-1989, 7 more petitions being Special Civil Application Nos. 8913 to 8919 of 1989 were filed.3. On 12-10-1990 Rule was issued in each of these petitions with the order that they will be heard with Special Civil Application No. 3522 of 1989. On the question of interim relief, it was recorded with regard to the petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 8914 to 8916 of 1989 that they had already been terminated from the service with effect from 10-2-1990 and with regard to the petitioner in Special Ci...
Prayas Woollens (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Guj55; (1997)3GLR234
ORDERJ.N. Bhatt, J. 1. Whether respondent No. 2 Assistant Collector, Dabhoi has jurisdiction to revoke or cancel the N.A. permission granted by or on behalf of the Collector is the main theme of the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner-company is a company established under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner-company purchased the land bearing Survey No. 77 Part admeasuring Acres 6 Gunthas 22 situated in the sim of village Sarnej, Taluka Vaghodia, District Vadodara, for the purpose of establishing a woollen yarn factory from respondents Nos. 3 to 5 who applied for conversion of the said land into non-agricultural use on 18th Nov. 1989. The permission for non-agricultural use submitted by respondents Nos. 3 to 5 came to be granted by the TDO, Vaghodia, by his order dated 12-2-1990. The mutation entry No. 1025 came to be effected in the revenue record pursuant to the said permission. The said entry was certified ...
Mark Laboratories and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR360
J. N. Bhatt, J.1. The petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of the judgment and order passed by the President, Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, in Revision Application No. TEN. B.A. 817 of 1985 decided on 27-11-1989 whereby the orders dated 30-8-1983 and 7-5-1984 of the Deputy Collector and the Assistant Collector respectively came to be quashed and set aside, by filing this petition under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioners are the purchasers of parcel of lands for their industries from respondent Nos. 3 & 4. Respondent No. 2, Patel Kachrabhai Prahladbhai was the owner of land bearing block No. 1128 admeasuring H. 1-09-27 sq. mtrs. of village Bileshwapura, Tal.: Kalol. He wanted to transfer the land and, therefore, he made an application under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act) to the Deputy Collector, Mehsana on 27-8-1983 for permission to transfer the said land in favour of respondent No. 3 on the gro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »