Gujarat Court October 2000 Judgments
Mangalsing Bhansing Rajput Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2264; (2002)1GLR509
M.R. Calla, J.1. Learned Addl. City Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Ahmedabad rendered the judgment and order dated 27-4-1989 in Sessions Case No. 266 of 1987 acquitting all the accused persons of charge under Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.D.P.S. Act') but held all of them guilty under Section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced each of them to R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs, 1 lac and in default to further undergo 1 year R.I. The three convicts, namely, Bharat Girjashanker Raval, Bansi Rupaji Chauhan (Darji) and Mangalsing Bhansing Rajput preferred Criminal Appeal Nos. 363, 300 and 325 of 1989 challenging the conviction and sentence, as aforesaid, before this Court. The concerned Customs Authority also filed Criminal Appeal No. 956 of 1990 against the part of the same judgment and order whereby the three accused have been acquitted of the charge under Section 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. When all these Appeals we...
Tag this Judgment!Gulamminya Hasuminya Decd. Through His Heirs Vs. Sakhavatkhan Mohmadkh ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1068
H.H. Mehta, J. 1. This is a Civil Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short the 'Act'), filed by the original defendant challenging the correctness, legality and propriety of judgment dated 14th September, 1987 rendered by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad in Regular Civil Appeal No. 143 of 1981, whereby the said Appellate Bench was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the original defendant and confirm the judgmentEx. 46 dated 25th March, 1981 rendered by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Court No. 12 at Ahmedabad (who will be referred to hereinafter as the learned Judge of the trial Court) in H.R.P. Suit No. 4896 of 1977.2. Here in this Civil Revision Application, Revision Petitioner was an original defendant and Revision Opponent was an original plaintiff in the suit being H.R.P. Suit No. 4896 of 1977 before the trial Court, and therefore, for the sake of convenience, p...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and anr. Vs. Natwerlal M. Badiani
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1378; [2001]250ITR641(Guj)
M.R. Calla, J. 1. Special Civil Application No. 6213 of 1986 was filed on 28-1-1986 challenging the proceedings in the Civil Suit No. 1196 of 1986 and the Misc. Application No. 234 of 1986 filed therein in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Jamnagar including an ex parte injunction order dated 25-11-1986 passed in the aforesaid proceedings. In Special Civil Application No. 6214 of 1986 while challenging the proceedings in Misc. Application No. 236 of 1986 (in Civil Suit No. 1197 of 1986) in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Jamangar including an ex parte injunction order dated 25-11-1986 passed in these proceedings a further declaration was sought that Civil proceedings cannot be instituted in any civil Court in respect of search and seizure proceedings under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred; a further declaration was sought that the civil Court is not even otherwise competent to entertain any such suit and grant any relief in respe...
Tag this Judgment!Bhartiya Karmachari Sangh Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR1172]; (2001)2GLR1057; (2001)ILLJ510Guj
D.H. Waghela, J.1. These petitions having been filed against the same respondents involving the same issues, they are heard and disposed of together by this common order.2. Special Civil Application No. 10081 of 2000 is filed by a Trade Union on behalf of its members numbering 21 and praying for them the relief of absorption in service on regular and permanent basis by the respondent No. 1 as the principal employer (O.N.G.C., for short). The employees concerned are admittedly employed by respondent No. 2 -contractor since various dates of joining in late 1997 to April, 2000. Although, they are appointed as 'plant assistants' by the contractor, the work of helpers is taken from them under the control and supervision of O.N.G.C., through the contractor so as not to make them permanent and regular employees, according to the petition. It is averred that the activity of maintaining the effluent treatment plant (E.T.P.) is a statutory requirement and of a perennial nature and the employment...
Tag this Judgment!Reserve Bank of India Vs. Piramal Financial Services Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR700
K.M. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner Reserve Bank of India (hereinafterreferred to as `the RBI') is a body Corporate,established by the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934(hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The petitionerhas filed this petition under Section 45MC of the Act(Power of Bank to file winding up petition) for windingup of M/s.Piramal Financial Services Limited.(hereinafter referred to as `the respondent Company') andis also non-Banking Financial Institution (N.B.F.C.) andalso for appointment of an Official Liquidator of thesaid Company and also for appointment of a ProvisionalLiquidator of the said Company pending winding uppetition.FACTS:2. In the present petition the petitioner hasaverred in this petition that the petitioner is aregulatory authority for non-banking financial companies(NBFCs) and as such it has power under Chapter III-A i.e.collection and furnishing credit information as amendedby Reserve Bank of India (Amendment) Act, 1997 whichinclude issuing of certificate of...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Natwerlal M. Badiani Advocate
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR450
M.R. Calla, J.1. Special Civil Application No. 6213 of 1986 was filed on 28.1.86 challenging the proceedings in the Civil Suit No. 1196/86 and the Misc. Application No. 234/86 filed therein in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Jamnagar including an exparte injunction order dated 25.11.86 passed in the aforesaid proceedings. In Special Civil Application No. 6214 of 1986 while challenging the proceedings in Misc. Application No. 236/86 (in Civil Suit No. 1197/86) in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Jamangar including an exparte injunction order dated 25.11.86 passed in these proceedings a further declaration was sought that Civil proceedings cannot be instituted in any Civil Court in respect of search and seizure proceedings under S. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred; a further declaration was sought that the Civil Court is not even otherwise competent to entertain any such suit and grant any relief in respect of any proceedings under the In...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Vaktabhai Punjabhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR2873
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. In this group of petitions the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act,1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for short), enacted by the Parliament on 24.12.1996 under Article 243-M(4)(b) of the Constitution of India which empowers the Parliament to extend the provisions of part IX of the Constitution to the Scheduled Areas and the tribal areas subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified in such law. The challenge is on the ground that the provisions of the said Act violate the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and are ultravires Article 243-D of the Constitution. A declaration is also sought that the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats (Amendment) Act,1998, enacted by the State Legislature for amending the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act,1993 as a corollary to the said Act, so that the provisions...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanbhai Haribhai Desai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3141
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the Government decision dated 22.12.1999 abolishing Vagadod taluka in Patan District and placing all the villages comprised in the said taluka into Patan taluka. By ad-interim order dated 28.12.1999 this Court had directed the respondents to maintain status quo regarding abolition of Vagadod talukas. In view of the above ad-interim relief, the Government had not issued any notification under section 7 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879.2. The first petition in Special Civil Application No. 10459/99 is the Sarpanch of the Vagadod Gram Panchayat. The other petitioners are residents of villages which are part of the Vagadod taluka. Prior to 15.10.1997 the villages in Vagadod taluka were part of Patan taluka and by Government notification dated 15.10.1997 erstwhile Mehsana District was bifurcated into Mehsana District and Patan District. Vagadod taluka was constituted as a new taluka ...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Nevandrai Hasmatrai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR204
Y.B. Bhatt, J. 1. These are appeals under Section 96, C.P.C., at the instance of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (original defendant) who challenges the common judgment and decrees passed by the trial Court in a group of suits filed by various plaintiffs. 2. Since all the suits were based on almost identical pleadings and common issues of fact and law arose in those suits, the trial Court consolidated those suits, treated Civil Suit No. 1066 of 1986 as the main matter, recorded the evidence in the said matter, and decided all the suits in favour of the respective plaintiffs by the common judgment. It is this common judgment which is the subject-matter of the present appeals. As aforesaid, since common issues of fact and law arise in these appeals, the same can be disposed of by a common judgment. 3. There is no serious factual controversy involved in these matters, as also no serious controversy as to the findings of fact that may have been recorded by the trial Court in the impugn...
Tag this Judgment!israil @ Israr Pahelvan Nazirahmed Shaikh Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-19-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2209; (2001)1GLR306
H.H. Mehta, J. 1. The petitioner, who is a detenu, has, by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenged the legality and validity of an order of detention dated 19th July, 1999 (Annexure : A) which came to be passed by respondent No. 2 who is a Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, in exercise of his powers conferred upon him under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (Gujarat Act No. 16 of 1985) (same will be referred to hereinafter as 'the Act' for sake of brevity and convenience).2. The petitioner has challenged the said order of detention on the grounds that it -(i) is illegal; (ii) is invalid; (iii) is arbitrary, void ab initio; (iv) suffers from total non-application of mind; and (v) is in violation of provisions of Arts. 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. 3. As per papers of grounds of detention supplied to the detenu, it is the case of the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Commissioner of Police, A...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »