Gujarat Court April 1997 Judgments
Registrar, High Court of Gujarat Vs. B.J. Patel, Chief Judicial Magist ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-28-1997
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1660
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Could the collective, consensual and coherent managerial wisdom on administrative side of the appellant-High Court of Gujarat, in passing the impugned order of transfer of a judicial officer exercising its Constitutional powers under Article 235, be supplanted or implanted by the judicial wisdom, by the High Court, on its judicial side, exercising its Constitutional powers of extraordinary, prerogative, special and equitable writ jurisdiction enshrined in Article 226, that too at an interlocutory stage, in a matter of transfer, is the solitary but the substantial question for our appreciation and adjudication in this Letters Patent Appeal.2. Since the main writ petition is awaiting final verdict before the learned single Judge, we would like to mention only the skeleton projection of facts which are relevant and material for the purpose of appreciation and adjudication of the aforesaid dispute raised in this appeal.3. The respondent, herein, questioned the legality and...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjitkumar Chakravarti Vs. Co-operative Bank of Baroda Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-25-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ216
ORDERS.D. Pandit, J.1. Ranjit kumar Chakravati, original accused in Criminal Case No. 2029 of 1982 on the files of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baroda, has filed the present application.2. Respondent No. 1, co-operative Bank of Baroda, has lodged a private complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baroda, against the present revision applicant and one more person by alleging that they had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 67,000/- by dishonestly encashing the cheques in the accounts standing in the name of the present revision applicant. The complainant had examined its Manager by way of leading evidence before charge. Besides, the oral evidence of the Manager of the complainant, the documentary evidence, including the confession statement given by the present revision applicant, was produced and considering the said material, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was pleased to pass an order on 21st January, 1984 to frame the charge against the present revision applicant and other ...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Gas Company Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-25-1997
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1765
S.D. Dave, J.1. The Appeal From Order came to be admitted by me, yesterday, i.e., 24th April 1997. I have also granted the interim relief in terms of Para 5(B) on the Civil Application. This had happened at about 4-45 p.m. After signing the above said orders, there was a prayer coming from learned Counsel Mr. Shah, saying that, my orders granting the interim relief should be the reasoned orders. Acceding to this request, I had said yesterday, in my orders that, I shall be recording my reasons for the above said orders, today, i.e., 25th April 1997.2. Accordingly, I proceed to record my reasons for my orders granting the interim relief on the Civil Application in terms of Para 5(B), after admitting the Appeal From Order.3. There was, at the initial juncture, a debate as to whether the appeal itself would merit admission. The debate was based upon a contention coming from learned Counsel Mr. Shah that, if the appeal itself does not merit admission, there would absolutely be no question f...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mahendrakumar M. Trivedi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-1997
Reported in: (1997)3GLR1935
R. Balia, J.1. The brief facts and circumstances in which this petition had arisen may be noticed. Respondent had filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the labour Court. Baroda alleging that on 3.1.1949 he was employed in the office of Bharuch Collector where he discharged duties until 1.9.1950. Thereafter, he discharged duties as card writer in the Rationing Office of Civil Supplies Department from 1.9.1950 to 31.12.1952 from which place he was retrenched on 31-12-1952. Fifteen days thereafter he was registered as unpaid candidate in the office of Mamlatdar and discharged duties at various places. He was appointed on 8.5.1958 as a retrenched employee from the Civil Services Department in the Mumbai State Road Transport Corporation as Writer, later came to be allotted to Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation on formation of State of Gujarat. He superannuated on 30.9.1985. He claimed that in terms of circular of the Government dated 17...
Tag this Judgment!Western Shipbreaking Corporation Vs. Clare Haven Limited, United Kingd ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-21-1997
Reported in: (1997)3GLR1984
R.R. Jain, J.1. Rule, Mr. Sanjanwala Waives service of Rule. 2. The dispute relates to execution of a foreign award, in India, under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Ordinance, 1996 (which now has become 'Act'). The applicant is a foreign corporate body whereas the opponent is a partnership firm carrying on business in India. It appears that as some disputes arose between the parties, the same were referred to a domestic Tribunal as per the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1950, in force in United Kingdom. The domestic tribunal resolved the disputes and passed award on 25-2-1996 in favour of the applicant for a sum of US $ 1,53,650 (equivalent to Rs. 56,69,685/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1-1-1995 till the date of the award. Since the opponent against whom the award operates is carrying on business and is having property within the territory of India, the applicant initiated execution proceedings No. 3 of 1996 in the Court of District Judge, Bhavnag...
Tag this Judgment!Ghelabhai Nagarji Desai (Decd.) Through His Heirs and Lrs. and anr. Vs ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-21-1997
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2351
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The petitioners prayed for quashing and setting aside of the order of the Deputy Collector, Valsad, dated 21st August 1984, Annexure 'F', and for further directions to the said authority to grant extension of time to the petitioners for reasonable period during which they can get non-agricultural permission from the District Development Officer and start work of construction on the land in dispute.2. The dispute pertains to the agricultural land of Revenue Survey Numbers 16/1, 16/2 and 16/3 of village Mogarwadi and Revenue Survey No. 13 of village Pardi-Sandhpur. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 purchased the land in dispute from petitioner No. 3. These lands were agricultural lands and an application was made before the Deputy Collector, Valsad, under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), for necessary permission to sell the land. The necessary permission for sale of the land was granted by the Deputy Collector, V...
Tag this Judgment!J.G. Bachoter, Supdt. of Customs Vs. Dostmahmad Amad Sumra
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1170; 1997(96)ELT32(Guj); (1997)3GLR1849
R.A. Mehta, A.C.J.1. Both the accused-respondents have been convicted in this criminal appeal for an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act and their acquittal by the trial Court has been reversed. Hence both the accused were issued notices of hearing on the question of sentence. Both the accused have filed affidavits and accused No. 1 - Dost Mahmad is present in person. As regards accused No. 2, at his request, we have heard his learned Counsel and considered the affidavit filed on the question of sentence. 2. Section 135 of the Customs Act provides that if any person is concerned in carrying or in any manner dealing with goods which he knows or reason to believe are liable to confiscation, he shall be punishable, in the case of an offence relating to goods to which Section 123 applies and the market price whereof exceeds Rs. 1 lac, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine. It is also provided that in absence of special and adequate re...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad New Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Central ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-1997
Reported in: 1999(114)ELT396(Guj)
ORDER1. The petitioner-company challenges enforcement of the bank guarantee by the Excise Department. The bank guarantee is given under the orders of the Supreme Court and the petitioner has failed in the Supreme Court and, therefore, the bank guarantee has become enforceable. 2. The contention raised by the petitioner is that since the petitioner is a sick company and there is a scheme sanctioned under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the coercive recovery of excise duty cannot be made except with the permission of the BIFR. 3. It is also submitted that under the sanction scheme, the concerned agency of the Government of India has agreed (inter alia) to waive the disputed excise duty liability of Rs. 4 lacs. Also to consider the withdrawal of the case pending against excise duty refund of Rs. 92 lacs with contingent interest of Rs. 166.15 lacs as on March 31, 1995 and waive the claim. Relying on this, it is submitted that the Excise Department has failed t...
Tag this Judgment!Manchhabhai Fakirbhai Vs. Tax Recovery Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-1997
Reported in: [1997]228ITR393(Guj)
R.A. Mehta, Actg. C.J. 1. Rule. Mr. M.R. Bhatt waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent. 2. The petitioner challenges the auction advertisement dated March 12, 1997. By that advertisement, the property at item No. 15 was sought to be auctioned on March 27, 1997. 3. The petitioner submits that under rule 53 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, a notice was issued for settling a sale proclamation. However, that notice did not fix any date for drawing up the proculamation of sale and settling the terms thereof. He has produced before us a xerox copy of that notice under rule 53 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the notice was issued on February 4, 1997. The sale proclamation exhibit 'B' is also issued on the same day, i.e., February 4, 1997, as seen from exhibit 'B'. It is, thus, clear that the sale proclamation has been issued without giving any opportunity of hearing for settling ...
Tag this Judgment!Navalram Laxmidas Devmurari Vs. Vijayaben Jayvantbhai Chavda
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Guj17; (1997)2GLR1755
J.M. Panchal, J. 1. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has emanated from suit brought by the respondent for declaration of title to the suit property and injunction directing the appellant to remove water tank, shed etc. constructed over the same.2. The suit property which is plot No. 38/A, admeasuring 995-1 sq. yds. is situated at Bhaktinagar Co-operative Housing Society, Rajkot. The plot originally belonged to the husband of the respondent and after his death the respondent became exclusive owner of the same. In part portion of the plot, five shops are constructed and in one portion there is a residential house comprising one room, a kitchen, latrine, bath-room and varanda. The residential house is let out to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 45/- per month. Five shops are also let out to different persons and one of the shops is let out to the appellant. According to the respondent, excluding the shops and residential house, the entire plot is open and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »