Gujarat Court March 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.
Bachubhai Popatlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3878; (1999)3GLR842
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. Through this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 5.9.1998 passed by the District Magistrate, Mehsana, under Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, and has prayed that the aforesaid detention order be quashed and he be released from illegal detention.2. Brief facts are that the petitioner is holding Government approved fair price shop in the name of Patel Bachubhai Popatlal, Nagalpur village in Mehsana District, and is carrying on trade of the stock of food grain, sugar, wheat, rice, edible oil and kerosene through fair price shop. The Mamlatdar, Mehsana made casual inspection of fair price shop on 19.8.1998 and it was found that the petitioner had sold in black market seven Quintals of levy sugar directly out of 12 Quintal levy sugar lifted through bill No.1554 dated 19.8.1998. Thereafter Supply Inspector, Mehsana...
Premsing @ Pallu Jesing Rajput Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2485; (2000)4GLR899
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 16.6.1998 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City under section 3(2) of the prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985 (for short 'PASA') and has prayed that the said order be quashed and he be released from illegal detention.2. From the grounds of detention, Annexure 'B' it seems that the Detaining Authority declared the petitioner to be dangerous person on the basis of five registered offences, four under section 379 IPC and the fifth under sections 392, 387 and 117 IPC as well as from the statements of two confidential witnesses. It was further found that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial for maintenance of public order. Lesser alternative remedies other than preventive detention were also considered by the Detaining Authority who found that except preventive detention other remedies were inefficacious. Accord...
Manjibhai Shamjibhai Vs. Natraj theatre and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-01-1999
Reported in: (1999)3GLR692
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. This revision under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Control Act,1947 has been filed by the revisionist-defendant no.2 challenging concurrent finding of the two courts below treating him sub-tenant of the defendant no.1 - respondent no.2 of this Civil Revision Application.2. The brief facts are that Natraj Theatre respondent no.1 is the owner and landlord of the disputed premises consisting of stall, some open space and room. It was let out to Gujarat Bottling Company Private Limited - defendant no.1. The allegation of the plaintiff - respondent no.1 was that respondent no.2 had illegally sublet, assigned or transferred in any manner the disputed accommodation to the revisionist-defendant no.2 and on this count the eviction of the tenant in chief as well as subtenant was sought. In addition to this, eviction was also sought on the ground that the tenant in chief was in arrears of rent for more than six months and he did not pay the same within a month of service o...
Patel Pareshkumar Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-01-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ223; I(2000)DMC213; (1999)2GLR1644
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 820/94 has brought in challenge the judgment and order dated 2.7.1994 recorded in Sessions Case No. 85/92 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, convicting the appellant under Sections 302, 304B, 498A and 201 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offence under section 302, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 304B, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for the offence punishable under Section 498A and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Section 201 of IPC. It was also ordered to run all the sentences concurrently.2. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1002 of 1994, that is, State of Gujarat, has also brought in challenge the same judgment and order whereby the learned Ad...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›