Gujarat Court September 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.
Patel Harshadbhai Ranchhodbhai Vs. Collector of Baroda and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-27-1996
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2145
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties. Challenge is made by the petitioner to the orders made by the respondents, Annexures 'B' and 'D', in this Special Civil Application.2. The petitioner was having licence to sell foodgrain, sugar and edible oils, which has been granted to him under the provisions of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981. The petitioner was served with a notice under Section 6(B) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Act) to show cause and explain as to why confiscation proceedings under Section 6A of the aforesaid Act should not be started on the ground of certain irregularities having been committed by him, as per the report made by the Food and Supply Inspector on 31st August, 1984. In pursuance to the said show-cause notice, inquiry has been held and thereafter under the order dated 3-12-1984, licence granted to the petitioner has been cancelled by the respondent No. ...
Shantilal Bamania and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-27-1996
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2129
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties. At the outset, it is to be noticed that though Rule has been issued in this case on 27th December 1985, the respondents have not filed any reply to this Special Civil Application. The petitioners in this Special Civil Application, prayed for quashing and setting aside of notification, Annexure 'A' dated 20th September 1982, of respondent No. 1 and another notification dated 28th June 1984 of 2nd respondent.2. The notification dated 29th September 1982 has been issued by respondent No. 1 in purported exercise of powers conferred on it under Section 18 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, whereunder the area, limits of which are defined in the Schedule annexed to the said notification, was declared to be a Wild Life Sanctuary. In pursuance of the said notification of respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 2 made a notification dated 28th June 1984 declaring thereunder the said area as Wild Life Sanctuary. The Adivasis who were ...
Patan Taluka Muman's Cattle Breeding and Milk Supplying Vs. State of G ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-27-1996
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1238
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The petitioner is an association of Patan Taluka Muman's Cattle Breeding and Milk Supplying. The petitioner and the members of the association are doing the business of cattle breeding and milk supply. Most of the members of the association have their own stables at Goregabn, Joeshwari and Borivali in the greater Bombay in the State of Maharashtra. The members of the petitioner-association are residents of Patan taluka, where they have got their residential houses and agricultural lands. The members of the petitioner-association have got their own Buffaloes which they took 10 Goregaon, Jogeshwari and Borivali from Patan taluka of this State. To take those Buffaloes to the place in other State as aforesaid, the members of the petitioner-association are required to obtain export permit from the competent authority under the provisions of the Bombay Essential Commodities and Cattle (Control) Act. 1958 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1958'). When the e...
Vijaya Bank Ltd. Vs. Regional Passport Officer and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-27-1996
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2222
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The matter was called out for hearing, but nobody is present on behalf of respondent No. 2 Heard learned Counsels for the parties present. Perused the Special Civil Application.2. The petitioner. Vijaya Bank Ltd., filed this Special Civil Application before this Court and prayer has been made therein that the respondent No. 1 be directed not to renew the passport No. S-726086 of the respondent No. 2 and to refuse the renewal of passport of respondent No. 2. The aforesaid passport expired on 31st December 1985. This Court, on 27th October 1985, directed the respondent No. 1 not to renew and/or issue fresh passport in favour of respondent No. 2 without permission of this Court. The respondent No. 2, however, has been given liberty by this Court to move this Court whenever occasion to get the passport renewed and/or issue arises. I do not find anything on record that at any stage after 27th December 1985, the respondent No. 2 moved this Court to get passport renewed and...
Nitinkumar Sakalchand Shah Vs. Chandrahash Punjalal Parikh
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-27-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR670
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The petitioners have assailed the judgment and decree for eviction recorded by the Courts below on the grounds of sub-letting, transfer and assignment of the demise premises, under Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ('Bombay Rent Act') and also on the ground of acquisition of suitable alternative accommodation by tenant, under Section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rent Act, by invoking powers under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act.2. The conspectus of relevant material facts may be articulated at the outset. The respondents instituted a legal battle by filing H.R.P. Suit No. 874 of 1983 against the petitioners to recover possession of the demise premises on the following three grounds:(i) arrears of rent from 8-12-1980;(ii) acquisition of suitable alternative accommodation;(iii) sub-letting, transfer or assignment of the demise premises.3. The demise premises are consisted of one room and one kitchen bearing Municipal Cen...
State of Gujarat Vs. Dawood Jivan Solanki
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-26-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR294
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Kutch at Bhuj on 8th December 1995 in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1995 is under challenge in this appeal by leave of this Court under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code for brief). By his impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge accepted the appeal preferred by the respondent against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Rapar on 30th December 1994 in Criminal Case No. 764 of 1993. The learned trial Magistrate convicted the respondent herein of the offence punishable under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 (the Act for brief) and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- in default simple imprisonment for one month.2. It is not necessary to set out in detail the facts giving rise to this appeal. It may be sufficient to note that the respondent he...
State of Gujarat Vs. Ramanbhai Durlabhbhai Patel and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-1996
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2424
A.N. Divecha, J.1. How the lack of a little extra carefulness on the part of certain official of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Vyara has proved a costly lapse for and a fatal blow to the prosecution is amply and eloquently demonstrated in this case.2. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Surat on 11th July 1984 in Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 1982 is under challenge in this appeal by leave of this Court under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code for brief). Thereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the appeal of respondent No. 1 herein against his conviction by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Vyara of the offence punishable under Section 16(l)(i) read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act for brief) by his judgment and order passed on 16th June 1982 in Criminal Case No. 1236 of 1981. Thereby respondent No. 1 herein was sente...
State of Gujarat Vs. Mer Jiva Ranmal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-24-1996
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1200
A.N. Divecha, J.1. It is said: 'A little learning is a dangerous thing'. How the little learning of law on the part of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Mangrol has dangerously resulted in mockery or travesty of justice is very well reflected in this case wherein the order of releasing the respondent herein on probation under Section 4(3) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (the Act for brief) passed on 28th May 1985 below the Application at Exh. 25 in Criminal Case No. 27 of 1984 is under challenge under Section 11(2) thereof read with Section 377(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr. P.C. for brief).2. This case has a somewhat chequered history. The respondent herein appears to have committed offences punishable under Sections 326 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the I.P.C. for brief) by severely beating the complainant, named, Dudabhai Samatbhai Mer, at about 10-30 a.m. on 31st December 1983. The necessary charge-sheet was presented in the ...
Anwar @ Anudo Alimamad Pathan Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-24-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR539
N.J. Pandya, J.1. The accused-appellant of Criminal Case No. 6 of 1990 came to be convicted of offences under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the N.D.P.S. Act) by the learned Sessions Judge of Kutch at Bhuj by his order dated 24-1-1992. As a result the learned Judge awarded 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh and in default to undergo one more year of imprisonment.2. The facts leading to the aforesaid result at the end of the trial are that on 30th April, 1990, complainant-a P. I. of the State Police had received information about two persons being in the process of bringing contraband article (narcotic) for the purpose of selling. Alongwith Panchas, therefore, complainant-P.I. and members of the raiding party went at the likely place from where the accused were to pass and waited there. Their wait was rewarded. Two persons on seeing the waiting party started running away and the police party succ...
Vinubhai Malabhai Visani and ors. Vs. Lathi Nagar Panchayat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-1996
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2205
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The Counsel for respondent No. 4 contended that this Special Civil Application is not maintainable for the reason that one of the petitioners has already filed civil suit for the same relief. Another contention raised by the Counsel for the respondent is that the contract of collection of vegetable market tax has come to an end on 31st March, 1995 and as such this petition is otherwise not maintainable. I have gone through the contents of this Special Civil Application. On 30th December, 1995 preliminary objection was raised by the Counsel for respondent No. 1 to the effect that petitioner No. 4 has already filed suit in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), at Lathi and this fact has been suppressed. This Court has ordered for deleting the name of petitioner No. 4.2. It is not in dispute that one of the petitioners has filed civil suit on the same subject-matter and that is pending, though that was a serious concealment of fact made by the petitioners. Now that petitione...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »