Gujarat Court April 2000 Judgments
O.N.G.C. Vs. Anil Construction Co. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Guj284; (2000)3GLR2244
D.C. Srivastava, J. 1. These appeals arising out of the common judgment and decree of the City Civil Judge involving common questions of law and facts are proposed to be decided by a common judgment. 2. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are as under :-- In terms of Clause 25 of the Arbitration Agreement between the parties, the arbitrator was appointed by the Court under Sections 8 and 9 of the Arbitration Act. The disputes between the parties were referred to the arbitrator who entered upon the reference. The arbitrator gave first interim award in favour of the first opponent before the Court below on 12-2-1983. This first interim award was admittedly accepted by the parties though with slight hesitation. The first opponent submitted second application on 25-4-1983 for second interim award, whereafter, second interim award was given by the arbitrator on 20-5-1983. Upon coming to know of the second interim award, the applicant moved before the arbitrator for time to file rev...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Manekalal Tailor Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-2000
Reported in: (2000)3GLR326
Y.B. Bhatt, J. 1. This is an appeal under section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, at the instance of the original complainant, who challenges the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate, Court No. 9, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No. 677/92, whereby the second respondent herein was acquitted in respect of the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court as regards the proper approach and perspective in relation to appeals against acquittals are by now well settled and do not require a detailed discussion. Suffice it to say that the appellate courts are under an obligation not to allow such appeals lightly or on a casual basis, unless the findings recorded on the basis of the evidence on record are grossly unjust, patently unsustainable or based on no evidence at all. On the facts of the present case I find that such is not the case.3. The facts which are not in dispute and/or indisputable are...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkot Municipal Corp. Vs. Lavjibhai M. Patel Thro'His P.O.A. Holder R ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-2000
Reported in: (2000)3GLR413
ORDER :At this stage Shri B. P. Tanna, learned Counsel for the appellant requests for eight weeks time to approach the Apex Court. We, however, find that no stay order was passed in this Appeal at any stage. However, on 23.6.1998 learned Counsel Shri H. P. Raval for the respondent No.1 made a statement before this Court that the respondent No.1 shall not execute the Decree challenged in all the Appeals till the disposal of the Appeal. Shri Raval now agrees that this statement may be continued for a period of two months from today to enable the appellant to approach the Apex Court for appropriate relief and the words 'till the disposal of the Appeal' made in his statement under order dated 23.6.1998 be read as for a period of two months from today....
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwandas Trilokchand Vs. Bhungodomal Zamatmal, Through His Heirs
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-2000
Reported in: (2001)GLR216
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioner herein is the original plaintiff of Regular Civil Suit No. 34 of 1975. Aforesaid suit was filed in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Kutiyana, against one Shirumal Zamatmal and four others. Said Shirumal Zamatmal died during the pendency of the suit and, therefore, his heir Bhungdomal Zamatmal was brought on record, but during the pendency of the appeal, he also died and, therefore, heirs of Bhungdomal were also brought on record before the appellate court, who are present respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/6 herein.2. It is the case of the plaintiff in the suit that the property in Kutiyana town at M.G. Road was an evacuee property. Part of the suit premises was purchased by the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 7.1.1975 from the power-of-attorney holder of original owner Bhagwandas Vatumal and Reemandas Chuhdmal and from the date of the said purchase, the plaintiff has become the owner of the suit property. According to the plaintiff, shop No...
Tag this Judgment!Kutch Shipping Agency P. Ltd. Vs. Board of Trustees, Kandla Port Trust
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-05-2000
Reported in: 2001(127)ELT41(Guj)
ORDERB.C. Patel, J.1. Being aggrieved by an order made by the Learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 380 of 2000 on 27-1-2000, the present appeal is filed by the dissatisfied petitioner. 2. The petitioner claiming the container without cargo addressed a letter to the Traffic Manager, Kandla Port Trust, Kandla. 3. It appears that the goods were imported and the importer is absconding as it is the case of the petitioner himself that the letter addressed to the owner/importer of the cargo has been returned undelivered with the postal remarks 'the company is closed' which is tantamount to abandon of cargo. Learned Counsel placed reliance on Section 62(1) of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 for raising a contention that the goods are required to be disposed of in the manner laid down in the Section and the amount is required to be recovered, deficit if any, from the owners and not from the supplier of the container. It is required to be noted that the goods arrived in container...
Tag this Judgment!Panchmahals District Baxi Panch and Bachatvarg Kanya Vs. State of Guja ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-05-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR722
C.K. Thakkar, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner - Mandal for quashing and setting aside an order passed by the Gujarat Secondary Education Board (`Board', for short), respondent No.2 herein on 14th of March, 1996, Annexure `A', and confirmed by the Government of Gujarat, respondent No.1 herein on October 1, 1996, Annexure `B' herein.2. The case of the petitioner is that it is a Society, registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. The Society wanted to start a girls' school at village Sanjeli, under the name and style of 'Indira Kanya Vidyalaya'. For that purpose, an application was made. Initially, recognition was refused, but the said order was challenged by the petitioner by preferring an appeal and finally, the Government granted the recognition on December 29, 1989. It was the case of the petitioner that, in the nearby area of about 30 K. Ms., there is no other girls' school and the only girls' school is run by the petitioner.3. On August 9, 1995, a su...
Tag this Judgment!Ashokkumar Harakchand Shah Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)2GLR761
M.R. Calla, J. 1. The petitioner, namely, Ashok kumar Harakchand Shah, who is a Kenyan citizen and not a citizen of India is aggrieved against the rejection of his application for Arms Licence on the ground that the Arms Licence can be granted only to a person- who is a citizen of India, according to the provisions of Sec.13(3) of the Arms Act, 1959.2. The petitioner has come with the case that though he is a Kenyan citizen he is settled in Vapi, District Valsad since 1983 and has been residing there and was residing at Vapi at the time when he applied for licence as also on the date when the present writ petition was filed. The petitioner says that he is an industrialist and has established a paper Mill known as 'Daman Ganga Paper Mill Ltd.', which was previously known as 'Haria Paper Mills Ltd.' in G.I.D.C., Vapi with an investment of Rs.500 lacs in an area of 8089 sq.mts. providing employment to 115 people. It is alleged that the turn over of the said Mill for the year is Rs.617.50 ...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-04-2000
Reported in: 2001(74)ECC296; 2001(131)ELT535(Guj)
ORDERR.K. Abhichandani, Member (J)1. Both these petitions raise common questions and have been argued together. The petitioners have challenged the Circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs on 7-4-1998 and the consequential Trade Notice No. 36/98, dated 22-5-1998 issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Ahmedabad, by which it was clarified that 'coal-ash (cinder)' is an excisable commodity classifiable under sub-heading No. 2621.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and chargeable to appropriate rate of duty. According to the Board coal-ash (cinder) was specified in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and this read with Section 2(d) of that Act rendered coal-ash (cinder) as 'excisable goods'. The Board was also of the opinion that the commodity satisfied the test of marketability and had a distinct commercial identity known to the trade. Admittedly, the expression 'coal ash' and the word 'cinder' were used as synonyms ...
Tag this Judgment!Heirs of A.i. Mithaiwala-asmai AbdulhuseIn Vs. Ashwinkumar L. Bhatt
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-03-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3115
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioners are the original defendants against whom the respondents-plaintiffs have filed a suit for getting a decree of eviction.2. The case of the plaintiffs in the suit was that the defendants were negligent in payment of rent and that the rent was due from 1.1.70 to 31.3.70 and therefore, demand notice was sent and the defendant had not complied with the same and therefore, a suit was filed against the defendant on the grounds of arrears of rent, bonafide requirements of the plaintiffs as well as subletting and also on the ground of nuisance.3. The defendant appeared in the suit and resisted the suit by filing written statement at exh.16. It was denied that the defendants were in arrears of rent. According to them after the receipt of the suit notice, they had sent MO to the plaintiffs but the plaintiffs refused to accept the same. Regarding nuisance it was pointed out that he was convicted for using the suit premises for illegal purposes. He denied the cla...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›