Gujarat Court May 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.
Gopalla Ghisulal Chhipa (Since Decd.) Through His Heirs and Lrs. Vs. S ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-28-1996
Reported in: (1999)1GLR546
H.R. Shelat, J.1. The appellant (now deceased) was placed on trial before the Special Judge for the District of Bhavnagar at Bhavnagar to answer the charge of the offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in Special Case No. 1 of 1984 on the file of the Court. The trial ended in conviction and the deceased appellant came to be sentenced to three months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one moth more. The case of the prosecution in short is as under.2. Dahyabhai Bhutabhai is serving as Keyman in Railways. He resides at Nari in Bhavnagar District. Damji aged about 18 years and Ramesh aged about 17 years are his sons. Both the sons go to the factories for labour work, and during leisure hours they also take their cattle to the grazing ground for the purpose of grazing. The deceased-appellant was serving as Mounted Armed Police Constable. His duty was to move aroun...
State of Gujarat Vs. Virbhadrasinh Govubha Gohil and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-23-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR860
S.K. Keshote, J.1. A criminal complaint was lodged against the accused, virbhadrasinh Gohil and Raymal Chhotabhai Rathod, respondents herein, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code on 26th April 1996. It is stated in the complaint that when a trap was caried out, respondents-accused saw the raiding party from a distance and they ran away with the bribe amount of Rs. 50/- taken from one Mr. Yogeshbhai Bhagavatiprasad Vyas. The police officer could arrest the accused persons only after a period of 58 hours and a remand application was given by the investigating officer in the Court of the learned Special Judge concerned on 29th April, 1996. The remand was prayed for on the ground that muddamal of Rs. 50/- is yet to be recovered from the accused. Another ground that has been given is that panchnama is also yet to be prepared for getting the amount from the accused pursuant to Section...
Daulatshinhji Savanthsinhji Solanki and ors. Vs. Executive Engineer, H ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-08-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Guj64
ORDERS.D. Shah, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Kamal Mehta, learned AGP waives service of Rule of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 3 is ordered to be deleted. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the matter is finally heard and decided.2. The petitioners -- original plaintiffs areaggrieved by concurrent judgments and orders of two Courts below at interlocutory stage, the two Courts have refused to grant injunction in terms of prayer contained in Exhibit 5 of Regular Civil Suit No. 177 of 1993. The plaintiffs sued for declaration and permanent injunction inter alia contending that they were the owners and occupiers of agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 8, 111, 114, 115, 116, 109, 108 and 165 situated at the outskirts of village Vasana. It was their case that there was already an existing road from village Vasana to Kadodra which was situated on the western side of the aforesaid parcels of land. It was their case that however the Executive Engineer and the Sta...
Karnavati Fincap Ltd. and Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-1996
Reported in: [1996]87CompCas186(Guj)
R. Balia, J.1. These two petitions raise identical issues and are, therefore, decided by this common order. 2. The petitioners have challenged the issuance of summons to them by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short 'SEBI'), respondent, to appear before the Investigating Authority under section 11(3) of the SEBI Act. The contention of the petitioners is that under the provisions of the SEBI Act and under the provisions that have been referred to in the summons, the petitioners can (not ?) be called upon to furnish information nor can an enquiry be made against them. Their case is that the petitioners in both the cases are purchasers of securities, namely, shares of Mr. Madanlal B. Purohit listed on the Stock Exchange, Bombay. Merely because as investors they have dealt with those shares through stock brokers on the Stock Exchange, Bombay, they do not fall in the category of persons against whom inquiry can be instituted or from whom information can be called for or disc...
Gujarat Municipal Finance Board Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR317(Guj)
B.C. Patel, J.1. Gujarat Municipal Finance Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) constituted under the provisions contained in the Gujarat Municipal Finance Board Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Boards Act') has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying to quash and set aside the notices dt. 24th March, 1995 for asst. yrs. 1984-85 to 1993-94 issued under s. 148 r/w s. 147 of the IT Act (hereinafter referred as the IT Act) and to permanently restrain the respondents from making any assessment in respect of the said assessment years. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as under : 3. The petitioner Board came into existence in 1979 under the Boards Act and has a perpetual succession and a common seal with powers subject to the provisions of the Boards Act. The Board used to receive grants on various occasions from the consolidated fund of the State and in discharge of its duties, the...
Govindbhai Gelabhai Patel Vs. Madhabhai Prabhudas Patel and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-03-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR298
S.D. Shah, J.1. This Civil Revision Application is preferred by the original plaintiff against the judgment and order dated 25th of August, 1995 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Unjha, whereby the trial Court has rejected the application at Exh. 105 for amendment of plaint filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P. Code on the ground that earlier application for amendment of plaint which was filed at Exh. 56 was rejected on 9th of July, 1993 and hence the second application was barred by principle of res judicata.2. The petitioner-plaintiff instituted a Regular Civil Suit No. 149 of 1990 in the Court of Civil Judge at Unjha for declaration that he has a right of way in the open parcel of land admeasuring 13 feet x 40 feet on the southern side of the plot of defendant bearing Revenue Survey No. 2168/1 and for further declaration that the defendant has no right to put up construction over such land. He also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the respondents-defe...
Dhaniben Makanbhai Tandel Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-03-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR14
B.C. Patel, J.1. Petitioner has filed this petition in the year 1984. under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the order dated 22-3-1978 vide Annexure 'B' passed by the Competent Authority, Bombay, under the provisions contained in Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'SAFEMA'). This Court issued notice on 29-3-1984. However, no reply was filed and even after issuance of Rule on 3-4-1984, returnable on 18-4-1984, till the matter was called out for hearing, no return, that is to say affidavit-in-reply, is filed by the respondent denying the averments made in the petition. Therefore, this Court taking those averments to be true shall proceed with the matter in the wake of affidavit filed on behalf of the the respondent No. 2 stating that the petition is filed before the Apex Court being Criminal Writ Petition No. 224 of 1989 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for declaring the proceedings under SAF...
Chemicals Kamdar Sangh Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR148
M.R. Calla, J. 1. The facts giving rise to the present Special Civil Application are as under : 2. The petitioner union is a recognised union under the Code of Discipline having majority membership of the workers working as Tata Chemicals Limited, Mithapur, it raised a charter of demands for all the workmen of the company-Respondent No. 1 Respondent No. 2 is other unrecognised union and this unrecognised union of Tata Chemicals Skilled Mazdoor Sangh also raised the demands identical to the demands raised by the petitioner union. On such charter of demands being raised on behalf of the petitioner union and Respondent No. 2, the conciliation proceedings were held but the same failed and the appropriate Government made a reference to the Industrial Government made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot for adjudication of these demands raised by the petitioner union as also by the respondent No. 2 union. Two references were registered as (ITR) No. 245 of 1988 and (ITR) No. 263 of ...
Rasulbhai Sulamanbhai MomIn Vs. Hakimbhai Momjibhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-1996
Reported in: 1(1998)ACC186
S.D. Shah, J.1. The present Civil Revision Application is directed against the judgment and order of Motor Accident Claim. Tribunal (Auxiliary), Banaskantha District at Palanpur dated 11th July, 1995 whereby the Tribunal has rejected the application at Exhibit 8 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 80 of 1991.2. The claimant is one Rasulbhai Sulamanbhai Momin in M.A.C.T. No. 80 of 1991, who has signed and verified the application at Exhibit 8. He is the injured person who sustained injuries in a vehicular accident and- such vehicle is said to be belonging to the respondent No. 1 who is the owner and driver of the vehicle. From the First Information Report and the Panchnama prepared it is established that the registration number of the vehicle involved is stated to be GUZ 8540 while in the petition for compensation filed by the claimant the number is mentioned as GUU. 8540 which is a correct registration number. The second respondent Insurance Company has appeared before the Tribunal an...
M.U. Shaikh Vs. the Director of Employment and Training
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR71
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner challenges the decisions of the Service Tribunal in Appeal No. 372 of 1979 dated 17-12-1979, Appeal No. 388 of 1988 dated 2-11-1989 and Review Application No. 3 of 1990 dated 28-8-1990. The grievance of the petitioner has been that the Competent Authority has illegally prevented the petitioner from crossing the Efficiency Bar with effect from 1-1-1978.2. The petitioner was serving as a Junior Clerk in the District Employment Exchange, Surendranagar and has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31st January, 1995. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working under the Directorate of Employment and Training in the office of the Deputy Chief, University Employment Information and Guidance Bureau, Rajkot, as a Junior Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 350-12-410-EB-12-470-15-500. On 17th January, 1978, the Deputy Chief, UEIG Bureau, made an order, by which he allowed the petitioner to cross the Efficiency Bar at Rs. 410/- in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »