Gujarat Court February 1999 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.
Mahendra Harjivan Luhar Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3025; (1999)2GLR729
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. This petition raises a somewhat unusual and peculiar situation arising from the decision of this Bench in Criminal Appeal No.256 of 1985, allowing the acquittal appeal preferred against the judgement and order dated 14.11.1984 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 34 of 1984, acquitting the respondent of the charges of robbery, murder and receiving stolen property. The case of the petitioner Mahendra Harjivan Luhar is that he has been wrongly put behind bars though he was not the real accused in the Sessions Case and the respondent No. 5 Ratilal, his younger brother had been tried for the offences, under his name. According to the petitioner, he is the eldest amongst five brothers and the names of his other brothers are Himmat, Ratilal, Narsi and Ganesh. It is stated in the petition that on 12.6.1984, Rajkot Police had arrested the petitioner's brother Ratilal the respondent No. 5 herein, in connection with the offences puni...
Ravubha Pratapsinh Jadeja Vs. K.N. Bhatt or His Successor in Office
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4147; (2000)GLR79
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. In effect, in this petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, two writs have been prayed for,(i) writ of certiorari for quashing the detention orderdated 17.8.1998 passed by the District Magistrate ,Anandunder section 3(2) of the Prevention of Black marketingand Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act,1980 (' the Act') and (ii) writ in the nature of HabeasCorpus for immediate release of the petitioner fromillegal detention.2. From the grounds of detention, it seems that at the timeof surprise check of the petrol pump of the owner/licence holder, certain irregularities were found and itwas also found that some solvent , other than diesel, wasbeing mixed at the petrol pump of the owner. A samplewas taken. It further proceeds that serious obstructionwas caused in due discharge of duties of public servantsengaged in raiding the petrol pump of the owner /licenceholder. For this, a separate criminal case has beenregistered in a competent court....
Harijan Maganbhai Chaturbhai Vs. District Magistrate
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4025; (1999)2GLR451
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the detention order dated 23.6.1998 passed by the District Magistrate, Surendranagar under section 2(c) of the Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act (for short 'PASA') and for a writ of habeas corpus for immediate release of the petitioner from illegal detention.2. It appears from the grounds of detention as contained in Annexure 'B' that the Detaining Authority considered the five registered cases under various sections of the IPC which are pending trial before the competent Court and also considered the statements of the nine confidential witnesses and from the aforesaid material he arrived at subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is dangerous person within the meaning of section 2(c) of the PASA. Accordingly, the impugned order of detention was passed which is under challenge in this writ petition only on two grounds.3. Th...
Prakash Kumar JaIn Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: 2001(127)ELT674(Guj)
M.C. Patel, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner's grievance at the time when the petition was filed was that the authorities under the Customs Act had failed to release the goods, which were ordered to be released by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, in the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of confiscation passed by the Additional Collector, Customs (Preventive), Gujarat. 3. The facts leading to the present petition are as follows : On 8-10-1994 some Customs Officers seized a parcel from M/s. Om Air Gargo Enterprises, Sarangpur, Ahmedabad belonging to the petitioner. The parcel contained consumer goods of foreign origin. The goods consisted of cosmetic items such as Shampoo, Spray and Shave Cream and electronic articles, such as cassette, flash light, electronic calculators, casio TV and cameras. There was no dispute that the goods were of foreign origin, but the petitioner's explanation was tha...
Ranoli Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Guj)156
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. A short, but, interesting question which has come up before us for opinion in this reference under Section 256 of the IT Act, 1961 (IT Act) is as to whether the exercise of power in imposing additional income-tax of Rs. 52,009 by the ITO under Section 104(1) of the IT Act and confirmed by the appellate authority and further confirmed by the Tribunal is justified or not, by referring a specific question as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the ITO was justified in passing order under Section 104(1) of the IT Act, 1961, and in levying additional tax of Rs. 52,009 ?'2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and we have examined threadbare the relevant proposition of the provisions of Section 104(1) of the IT Act and before we render our opinion in this reference, let us have a skeleton spectrum of relevant facts leading to the rise of this reference under Section 256...
Prahladji Mohanji Thakor Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Guj289; (2000)GLR6
C.K. Thakker, Actg. C.J. 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner, challenging the constitutional validity and vires of Section 264 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act').2. At the outset, it may be stated that one Sarojben S. Thakor filed Special Civil Application No. 432 of 1999, which came up before us on 21st of January, 1999. In the said petition also, validity of Section 264 of the Act was challenged on various grounds. After the matter was argued for some time, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, did not press challenge to vires of Section 264 of the Act and we passed the following order :--'The learned Counsel for the petitioner does not press challenge to the vires of provisions of Section 264 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993. In view of the said statement, the office is directed to place the matter before the learned single Judge taking such matters tomorrow, i.e. 22nd January, 1999.'So far as the present petition is concerned, Mr...
Dipakkumar Narsibhai Patel Vs. North Gujarat University and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-01-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Guj43
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. The respondent No. 3 is neither necessary nor proper party to this special civil application. Hence its name is ordered to be struck off from the title of the special civil application. The office is directed to make necessary correction in the cause title of the special civil application.2. Rule. Mr. Anjaria waives service of Rule on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2.3. Mr. Anjaria seeks permission to file reply on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, on the record of this special civil application, and the same is ordered to be taken on record.4. Looking to the fact that this matter pertains to cancellation of examination of petitioner as well as debarring him from appearing in the examination of University up to December 1999, and as the learned counsel for the parties are also in agreement that this matter may be taken up for final hearing today. I consider it to be appropriateto take this matter for final hearing today.5. Heard the learned counsel for the pa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›