Gujarat Court April 1997 Judgments
Rameshkumar Moraji Marwadi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2697
S.M. Soni, J.1. The appellant-original accused by this appeal has challenged the order of conviction dated 17th May, 1988 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code whereby he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 279/87.2. The facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the accused) are as under:The accused is the brother of Shantaben Sugnaji wd/o deceased Sugnaji Bhagirathji, Because of some matrimonial disputes between the deceased and Shantaben. Shantaben had left the matrimonial house and started to reside with her mother and brothers at the second floor, Block No. 11, Municipal Slum Quarters, Gomtipur, Ahmedabad. In the early morning of 28th October, 1987 may be at about 0.30 hours the deceased appears to have gone to the second floor of Gomtipur, Municipal Slum Quarters, Ahmedabad where his wife was residing with her mother and brothers. There it appears t...
Tag this Judgment!Panjrapole, Deodar and Etc. Vs. Chakaram Moraj Nat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1337; (1997)2GLR1321
ORDERN.N. Mathur, J.1. In this group of applications, which arises out of different orders with respect to interim custody of animals under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1960'), the following questions arise for consideration :Q-1 Whether Panjrapole has locus to apply and also approach to the High Courts in the matter of interim custody?Q-2 Whether as a rule pending investigation, enquiry or trial, the custody of the animal should be given to Panjarapole ?Q-3 Whether the owner of the animal alone is liable to pay the costs of maintenance of. the animals while in custody of Panjarapole?Q-4 Whether the seizure of animal by the police in non-cognizable case under the Act of 1960 and other ancillary Acts, is legal? What is its effect on order for interim custody?Q-5 What criteria should be adopted by the Courts while directing the interim custody of animal seized for the offence under the Act of 1960 and other ancillary Acts ?Questio...
Tag this Judgment!Divyang R. Parikh Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-1997
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2295
N.N. Mathur, J.1. By way of this Special Criminal Application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners seek direction to quash CR. No. 11/70/95 registered with Ranavav Police Station, Porbandar for offences under Sections 6(1) and (1-A) of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1933') and Section 20(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1885')2. Twin contentions raised in this Special Criminal Application is firstly, whether in view of Section 20(2) of the Act of 1885, the offence being non-cognizable, investigation by the police and proceedings thereof are illegal and void and secondly, whether in view of Section 7 of the Act of 1933, which gives power of search only to officer specially empowered by the Central Government, vitiates the entire proceedings conducted at the hands of the local police?3. The contention requires consideration in the backdrop of following Facts of the Case:...
Tag this Judgment!ioc Ltd. Vs. Deepak V. Shukla
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-04-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Guj8
1. Rule.I have heard both the sides at length at this stage on merits and therefore with the consent of the parties, I proceed to decide this application finally by this judgment,2. This application is filed by the original respondent in SCA No. 3887/06 which has been decided by me on 27-1-97. In the application it has not been specifically stated as to what is the nature of this application but at the time of hearing learned advocate for the applicant Shri G.N. Shah submitted that the application is an application to review and recall the order passed by this Court on 27-1-97 in SCA No. 3887/96. It . is also sbmiltcd by him that this application is filed in pursuance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 208/97. I have perused the judgment-order given by the Division Bench. But if the order of the Division Bench in LPA No. 208/97 is read carefully then it would be quite clear that there is no direction of the Division Bench to file any application. The Div...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Ambashanker Nagar Vs. Jayesh Chandulal Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-04-1997
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1304
S.D. Pandit, J.1. Rule. The original respondent No. 1 in Special Criminal Application No. 1149 of 1996 has filed the present application.2. The applicant wants me by this application to review the judgment delivered by me on 3rd October, 1996 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India, : 1999(4)SCALE474 .3. The earlier Special Criminal Application No. 1149 of 1996 was filed by respondent No. 1 in this review application seeking quashing of the said proceeding of Criminal Case No. 174 of 1991 which was registered on the strength of a private complaint lodged by the present applicant before me on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1619: 1997(2) GLR 1297. In the said case of AIR 1996 SC 1619: 1997(2) GLR 1297 the Apex Court had laid down certain criteria and directions for disposal of the criminal cases in view of the piling ...
Tag this Judgment!Stock Exchange, Ahmedabad Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-03-1997
Reported in: (1997)141CTR(Guj)195; [1997]227ITR906(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The petitioner Stock Exchange challenges the reassessment notices issued by the Asstt. CIT, Circle-2(5), Ahmedabad on 20th July, 1995 for the asst. yrs. 1989-90 to 1993-94. 2. The case of the petitioner is that its income was held to be exempt from income-tax on the ground that it was held for charitable purposes in the past for the asst. yrs. 1959-60 to 1984-85. According to the petitioner, it was entitled to exemption under s. 4(3)(i) of the IT Act, 1922 and later under s. 11 of the Act of 1961. The petitioner contends that it was registered under s. 12A of the IT Act with the CIT, Ahmedabad for the purpose of grant of exemption under s. 11 of the Act. As it was represented by some of the Stock Exchanges that they should be recognised as institutions established for charitable purposes under s. 10(23C)(iv) of the said Act also, the Government of India informed some of these Stock Exchanges including the petitioner by its letter dt. 18th December, 1980 that the...
Tag this Judgment!Chandulal H. Ghodasara and Etc. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-03-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Guj84; (1997)2GLR1451
ORDERR.R. Jain, J. 1. All these petitions are disposed of by common this judgment since identical questions of law and facts are involved. Except change in Survey Number and names of parties, all the relevant facts and documents are same identical hence for the sake of convenience. relevant documents produced in Special Civil Application No. 9602 of 1996 only are referred to in this judgment hereafter.2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a request for issuing writ of prohibition or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 14-8-1995, issued under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and restraining the respondent No. 2, Collector, City of Rajkot, from taking any action pursuant to the impugned notice, Annexure 'I'.3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this case are as under :The petitioner purchased from respondent No. 6, Mansukhbhai Savjibhai Patel, a piece of non-a...
Tag this Judgment!Udaipur Phosphates and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Mazdoor Kranti Uni ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-03-1997
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2132
R. Balia, J.1. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company incorporated and registered in 1982 under the Companies Act, 1956. In this petition it challenges the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Baroda dated 6-1-1995 (Reference I.T. 111 of 1992) by which the petitioner was ordered to be added as party in the said Reference which has arisen between the workmen of Kosan Industries Pvt. Ltd., respondent No. 2 represented by respondent No. 1 Union and M/s. Kosan Industries Pvt. Ltd., their employer respondent No. 2.2. The facts leading to this petition are : that K.I.P.L. (hereinafter referred to as the employer) was having one of its undertakings/establishments at S-623 Padara Road, Atladra, Baroda, manufacturing chemicals. All the workmen in question numbering 73 were employed in that undertaking. Their services were terminated through notice dated 30-6-1990 by the employer. Retrenchment compensation accompanying the same was also accepted by the workmen. In respect of these terminations,...
Tag this Judgment!Vora Aminbai Ibrahim Vs. Vora Taheral Mohmedali and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-02-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Guj31; (1998)1GLR760
J.M. Panchal, J.1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has arisen from the suit brought by respondents for redemption of property which was mortgaged to the deceased appellant.2. The suit property is a building situated in Jamnagar City and is described in detail in list 'A' appended to the plaint. The suit property originally belonged to deceased Sugrabai. She was owner and in possession of the suit property since long. The suit property was mortgaged by deceased Sugrabai for Rs. 2,000/- to the deceased appellant by executing an unregistered deed dated April 21, 1965. The period of mortgage was stipulated to be of 5 years in the said deed. On the date of execution of the unregistered mortgage deed, possession of the property was handed over to the deceased appellant. It may be stated that during the pendency of the Second Appeal, the original appellant i.e. Vora Aminabai Ibrahim expired on May 10, 1995, and her heirs and legal representatives hav...
Tag this Judgment!Maheshbhai R. Patel and anr. Vs. Palsana Gram Panchayat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-01-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Guj81
ORDERR. Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner's case is that they were keeping their movable articles for household use adjacent to back wall of their house at village Palsana and they were ordered to remove the same as it was causing obstruction on the street. The same was challenged before the appellate authority inter alia on the ground that while Panchayat has not taken any action to remove the pucca construction made on the other side of the street by occupants of the house adjacent to that pucca construction, petitioners have been picked up for discriminative treatment for removing the obstruction on the street. The plea found favour with the appellate authority. He quashed the notices and directed the goods removed by panchayat and returned to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the goods have been returned in pursuance of that order. At this juncture it may also be noticed that in the first instance op 1-1-1993, the appellate committee of Panc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›