Gujarat Court March 2000 Judgments
Paresh Ramanlal AmIn Close Friend of Detenu Ramesh J. Shah Vs. State o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1; (2000)2GLR846
B.C. Patel, J.1. This matter has been placed before this Court in view of the order passed by the Honourable the Chief Justice as a Division Bench hearing this matter, on 22.6.1994, expressed an opinion that it is desirable that the important questions raised are decided by a larger Bench. The questions which are referred are as under:-'(1). What will be the scope and sphere of operation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India when Sec. 6 of the PASA Act is applicable? (2). When one ground of detention is not existent as it is vague whether it would affect the right to make representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India?'2. The detenu was detained under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985 (for short, PASA Act) by an order made by District Magistrate, vide Annexure 'A' on 9.6.1993. Grounds of detention were served vide Annexure 'C' dated 9.6.1993. Against the said detention order, the aforesaid petition has been filed by a f...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Dinneshkumar Shivram Somdas Vs. Patel Keshavlal Mohanlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3546; (2000)2GLR1
M.S. Parikh, J.1. By judgment and order dated 9/12/1998 learned Single Judge (Coram : H.R. Shelat, J.) proposed Reference in following terms to a Larger Bench :-'From what day the period of 15 days envisaged by Sec. 138(c) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 begins to run, whether on and from the date of the service of the notice is effected or excluding the day on which the service of notice is effected ?' That is how the present Reference is before this Court in the context of following brief facts :-2. The appellant (the complainant) came in contact with 1st respondent (the accused) since they were hailing from the same community. The 1st respondent had a talk about the job, the appellant was seeking for. At that time the 1st respondent was in need of money. Initially Rs. 15,000/- came to be advanced on 18/5/1989. Rs. 20,000/- were again paid on 25/5/1989 and since he was in need of money Rs. 35,000/- were again advanced to him on 25/7/1989. He did not return the amount back as prom...
Tag this Judgment!Heirs of Badarmal H. JaIn and Gautamchand B. JaIn Vs. Heirs of Ratanbe ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3301
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. This is a revision application u/s 29[2] of the Bombay Rent Act at the instance of the original tenant defendant.2. The respondents - landlords had sued the defendant - tenant for a decree of eviction under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act on three grounds, namely, arrears of rent of more than six months, bonafide requirements of the landlords, and change of user of the premises on part of the tenant within the meaning of section 13[1][k] of the said Act, and on the tenant having acquired another residence within the meaning of section 13[1][l] of the Act. The trial Court, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, dismissed the suit of the landlords on all the grounds.2.1 The landlords therefore preferred an appeal u/s 29[1] of the Rent Act to the appellate Court. The lower appellate Court, after re-examining the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal, and the claim of the landlords so far as the ground of arrears of rent of more than six months is c...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Shakil Ahmed Abdul Muttalib
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3; (2000)3GLR270
Patel, J.1. In view of the order made by the Division Bench on 30.9.1996, the appeal was placed before the Honourable the Chief Justice for placing for final hearing and as per the order passed by the Honourable the Chief Justice, this matter is placed before this Bench.2. An order of detention was made by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar on August 17, 1994 on being satisfied that the detenu is required to be detained under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A declaration under section 9(1) of the Act was made by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India on September 21, 1994 informing the detenu that he has a right to represent to the Central Government as well as to the Advisory Board against the declaration in the manner specified in the grounds of detention. The petitioner challenged the order of detention by f...
Tag this Judgment!Maniben Navabhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: (2001)GLR791
C.K. Thakkar, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioners against an order passed by the Collector, Banaskantha, respondent No. 2 on February 22, 1989 suspending the resolution passed by Deesa Municipality, respondent No. 3 in exercise of power under Section 258 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as `Act').2. The case of the petitioners was that they were Safai Kamdar (sweepers) of class IV. They were appointed by respondent No. 3 Municipality. They were working since about ten years and hence they were required to be regularised. General Body of respondent No. 3 Municipality passed resolution No. 56 on 31st January, 1989 and resolved to regularise services of the petitioners. When respondent No. 2 came to know about the said resolution and in exercise of power under Section 258, he suspended the said resolution. However, before suspending the said resolution, no notice was issued to the petitioners, no explanation was sought and no opportunity of heari...
Tag this Judgment!Joshi Ratilal Laxmishanker Vs. Trustees of Sheth Gokuldas Hansraj Tran ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3415
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioner is the tenant, against whom the respondent-plaintiff Trust had filed Regular Civil Suit No.57 of 1979 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.), at Mandvi.2. It is the case of the plaintiffs in the suit that the plaintiff-Trust is duly registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts At. That the defendant is a tenant of the suit shop Nos. 10 and 11 at a monthly rent of Rs.62.52 Ps. According to the plaintiff, the rent from 17.1.1978 for 12 months, amounting to Rs.750.24 Ps. is due from the defendant. Therefore, the defendant was served with a demand notice on 1.2.1979 and he was asked to pay arrears of rent. The defendant had sent Rs.500.60 Ps., along with his reply dated 21.12.1979. Said amount was accepted by the plaintiffs without prejudice to their rights as the aforesaid amount was not covering the entire amount of arrears of rent. Thereafter, the defendant sent Rs.375/- on 22.3.1979, but it was not accepted by the plaintiffs as the ...
Tag this Judgment!Paresh Ramanlal AmIn Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: (2000)2GLR1798
B.C. Patel, J.1. This matter has been placed before this Court in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice as a Division Bench hearing this matter, on 22-6-1994, expressed an opinion that it is desirable that the important questions raised are decided by a larger Bench. The questions which are referred are as under:(1) What will be the scope and sphere of operation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India when Section 6 of the P.A.S.A. Act is applicable?(2) When one ground of detention is not existent as it is vague whether it would affect the right to make representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India?2. The detenue was detained under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short 'P.A.S.A. Act') by an order made by District Magistrate, vide Annexure 'A' on 9-6-1993. Grounds of detention were served vide Annexure 'C dated 9-6-1993. Against the said detention order, the aforesaid petition has been filed by...
Tag this Judgment!Vinodchandra Shantilal Shah Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-30-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Guj12; (2001)2GLR1807
M.R. Calla, J. 1. These 12 Special Civil Applications involve common questions of law based on identical facts, and therefore, I propose to decide all these 12 Special Civil Applications by this common judgment and order as under :2. Certain plots had been put to public auction by Disa Nagar Palika in the year 1992. The public auction was held and the upset price in respect of these plots as was determined by the Deputy Town Planner was declared. The public auction was held on 29th August, 1992. In this public auction, the petitioners herein purchased different plots at different prices as per the bids given by them and accordingly the sale deeds were required to be registered before the Sub-Registrar. The petitioners herein paid the stamp duty at the upset price which was fixed and did not pay the stamp duty at the actual price which was fetched by the Municipality. The concerned Sub-Registrar had registered the sale deeds and for such registration, the petitioners paid the stamp duty...
Tag this Judgment!Dashrathlal Ramniklal Thakker Vs. Mandal Nagarik Sahkari Bank Limited
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-30-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR249
C.K. Thakkar, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioners for issuance of a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the action of the authorities of rejection of nomination forms of the petitioner at the election to office bearers of Mandal Nagrik Co-operative Bank Limited -respondent no.1 herein.2. The case of the petitioners was that the respondent no.1 Bank is a co-operative bank. It was to hold election of Board and Directors in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. Since term of three Directors of the Board was over, election notification was issued on 17th May, 1999. In all 17 persons filed their nomination forms and on scrutiny, on flimsy, false and frivolous grounds, 10 nomination forms were rejected by the respondents. The petitioners are four of them who have approached this court contending that the grounds weighed with the respondent authorities for rejecting the nomination forms we...
Tag this Judgment!Magan Bijal Koli Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-28-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR745
M.S. Parikh, J. 1. The present conviction appeal arises from the impugned judgment and order dated 25-9-1987 rendered by the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Morbi in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1987. The appellant herein, described as 'the accused', came to be convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') and directed to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo further sentence of two months. *****2. The facts of the prosecution case which have been read by the learned Advocate from the F.I.R. Exh. 52 : The accused's brother Vaghji Bijalbhai gave his complaint/F.I.R. at 18.15 hours on 10-2-1987, day of incident to the effect that he has been residing with the members of his family at village Anandpar, Taluka Tankara and has been serving as temporary watchman in the Forest Department. Satabhai is his eldest brother. Maganbhai is younger to him. Kcshubhai is younger to Maganbhai and the com...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »