Gujarat Court June 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. Koli Chunilal Savji and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-24-1996
Reported in: (2000)4GLR3277
J.M. Panchal, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 236 of 1989 is filed by the State of Gujarat questioning legality and validity of judgment and order dated February 6, 1989 rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No. 74 of 1984, acquitting the respondents-original accused, of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P. Code. In Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 1989, the appellants, who are the original accused, have challenged the judgment and order dated February 6, 1989, delivered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No. 74 of 1984, convicting them of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the I.P. Code,and sentencing them to R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 250/-, in default S.I. for two months. While admitting Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 1989, the Court issued notice calling upon the appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 1989 to show cause as to why the sentence imposed for the offence punishable u...
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and ors. Vs. Yusuf Ali Ahmed ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR705
S.D. Shah, J.1. Present Civil Revision Application is filed by Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, original defendant, against the judgment and order passed in Exhibit 5, i.e., for an application for temporary injunction preferred by the respondent in the Court of Small Causes at Surat in Regular Civil Suit No. 551 of 1987 and confirmation of such order by the lower appellate Court by judgment and order dated 5th December, 1995 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 279 of 1992.2. Being aggrieved by such order of injunction which is granted against the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation by two Courts below, the present Civil. Revision Application is preferred under Section 115 of the C.P. Code mainly on the ground that the premises in possession of the respondent is 'Public Premises' as defined by Section 2(f) of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. By virtue of Section 16 of the said Act, it is submitted that jurisdiction of the Rent Court or the ...
Narmadaben R. Ganchi and ors. Vs. Competent Authority and Additional C ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-21-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Guj76; (1997)3GLR2208
1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in appeal No. 127/86 under Section 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act) dated 27th February 1991 confirming the order of the Competent Authority and Additional Collector, U.L.C. Vadodara.2. The petitioners are the owners of land bearing survey No. 98 admeasuring 10421 sq. mtrs. of land situated in village Akota, Taluka Baroda. The husband of the petitioner No. 1 had submitted a scheme under Section 21 of the Act before the Competent Authority at Baroda for the said land and the scheme had been sanctioned by the Competent Authority on 29-4-80. The Competent Authority had cancelled the scheme as there was breach of some conditions. The scheme has not been started within the period of one year from the date of the order and therefore, the scheme was cancelled by the Competent Authority by the order dated 25-7-83. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the ...
Bank of India Vs. Vijay Ramniklal Kapadia and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-21-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Guj75; [1997]89CompCas534(Guj); (1996)3GLR481
K.R. Vyas, J.1. This appeal from order under Order 43, Rule 1(a) of the Civil Procedure Code is filed by the appellant-Bank of India challenging the order passed below application, Ex. 12, in Special Civil Suit No. 242 of 1995 by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Surat dated 8-1-1996 directing the appellant-Bank to take the plaint to submit to the Debt Recovery Tribunal on or before 19-1-1996.2. The appellant instituted the said suit for recovery of Rs. 13,86,000/- from the respondents (original defendants). It is alleged that respondent No. 1, who was the employee in the main branch of the appellant-Bank, committed fraud, in concert with respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (original defendants Nos. 2 and 3), which resulted in the aforesaid loss. The suit was, therefore, filed to recover the ill-gotten gains from the respondents, together with running interest and costs of the suit.3. It appears that the suit was transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Ahmedabad purportedly under Sec...
Associated Cement Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-21-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR328
S.K. Keshote, J.1. A short but an interesting question raised in this Special Civil Application by the petitioners is whether the respondent, the State of Gujarat while compositing the offence punishable under Section 32 of the Bombay Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1958) could have charged sum of Rs. 20,000/- where on conviction for the offence committed, the maximum penalty under the said provision is only of Rs. 500/-. The Counsel for the petitioners submit that the offence committed by the petitioners and composition of which prayed for is punishable under Section 32 of the Act, 1958. Section 32 of the Act, 1958 reads as under:32. Penalty for delivering Article in quantity less than or receiving Article in quantity more than the quantity fixed by contract:(1) Whoever in selling any Article by weight or measure delivers or causes to be delivered to the purchaser any quantity of that Article, which is less than the quantity fixed by ...
Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessme ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-1996
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Guj)409; [1996]222ITR27(Guj)
B.C. Patel, J.1. The petitioner, by preferring this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at annexure 'J', which is dated December 28, 1994. The Assessing Officer had reason to believe while assessing the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1989-90 that there is escapement and, therefore, the notice was issued and the assessee was called upon to answer the notice within a period of 30 days. The assessment order for the relevant year is annexed at annexure 'D' and it appears that the assessee has been assessed under section 143(3) of the Act and the detailed order has been passed on March 31, 1992. While assessing, the Assessing Officer has referred to the investment allowance specifically in the assessment order at page 6. Mr. Shah has pointed out that the said order of assessment was called in question by the Commissioner of Income-tax...
Ravjibhai Kashibhai Patel Vs. Urban Land Tribunal and Ex-officio Secre ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Guj117; (1996)2GLR815
ORDERA.N. Divecha, J.1. The order passed by the Competent Authority at Vadodara (respondent No. 2 herein) on 6th October, 1988 as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 1 herein) on 9th April, 1990 inAppeal No. Vadodara-276 of 1988 is under challenge in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, respondent No. 1 rejeted the petitioner's application for permission under Section 21(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act for brief) on the ground that it was not filed within the prescribed time-limit.2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The dispute centres round 3 parcels of land bearing Survey Nos. 421. 422 and 423 admeasuring 710 square meters, 6987 square meters and 13057 square meters respectively situated at Village Vadsar within the urban agglomeration of Vadodara (the disputed lands for convenience). They enjoyed exemption under Sect...
Aadambhai Jan Mahmad Vs. Collector, Banaskantha and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR456
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the judgment and order passed in Revision on 16-5-1984 by respondent No. 4-State of Gujarat confirming the order of the Collector, Banaskantha in Appeal No. 95 of 1983 dated 15-10-1983 and also the order of the Deputy Collector, Palanpur in Case No. 12 of 1983 dated 20-2-1983.2. The petitioner is found to have committed breach of the terms of grant of new tenure land in dispute. Respondent No. 2 Deputy Collector, Banaskantha, Palanpur by his order dated 20-2-1983 in Case No. 12 of 1983 found that agricultural properties bearing Survey Nos. 298/4 admeasuring 2 acres-15 gunthas and 298/2 admeasuring 1 acre-3 gunthas are transferred in violation of grant of new tenure land. Notice under Section 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 ('Fragmentation Act' for short) came to be withdrawn by the impugned order of the Deputy Collector. The disputed land came to be forfeited to the Government on the grou...
Palanpur Kariana Merchants Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-19-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR168
S.D. Pandit, J.1. The petitioners in Spl. C.A. No. 14032 of 1994 have preferred the present L.P.A. against the dismissal of the petition by the learned single Judge of this Court on 19-4-1995. Respondent No. 4 Palanpur Municipality had decided in the meeting of the General Body dated 13-11-1981 to revise the octroi rate by passing necessary Resolution. Thereafter, a public notice was issued on 12-3-1982 inviting objections to the octroi hike. Objections were received by the Municipality. But it seems that no action on the same was taken and on 18-12-1985, the Administrator of the said Municipality gave public hearing of the said objections and after hearing the said objectors and considedring their objections decided to give effect to the Resolution of the hike of octroi rates and then moved the State Government as per the provisions of the Gujarat Municipalities Act. Government thereafter passed an order dated 23-1-1989 sanctioning the proposal of the Municipality and thereafter a pub...
Bhil Ambalal Bhanaji Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-1996
Reported in: (1998)1GLR172
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The order passed by the Collector of Mehsana (respondent No. 2 herein) on 22nd February 1996, rejecting the petitioner's application for selling certain parcels of land, bearing Survey Nos. 34/1, 34/2, 35/1 and 35/2 situated at Patan ('The Disputed Lands' for convenience) to one Kuberbhai Umedbhai Patel is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner is a tribal for the purposes of Section 73 AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code ('The Code' for brief). He is in occupation and possession of the disputed lands. They are agricultural lands. It is the case of the petitioner that he was unable to cultivate them in view of his old age and debilities. He, therefore, applied to respondent No. 2 on 11th December 1991 for permission to sell the disputed lands to one Kuberbhai Umedbhai Patel ('The Proposed Purchaser', for convenience). A copy of his application is...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »