Gujarat Court July 2000 Judgments
Dineshbhai Dhemenrai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-31-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR603
J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. Could it be said that the accused was afforded with an opportunity of effective and efficient hearing and paragon and promising, putative and palliative Legal Aid in a serious and major Criminal trial, wherein, minimum sentence, statutorily prescribed is 10 years and minimum penalty of fine is Rs. 1,00,000 It is the heart and main theme of this Conviction Appeal, on hand.2. In this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant-original-accused has assailed the legality and validity of thejudgment and sentence order recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge on 19th September, 1998 in N.D.P.S. Case No. 3 of 1998, whereby, the accused came to be convicted for having committed offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short N.D.P.S. Act) and atter hearing him on the quantum of sentence and considering the fact that wife of the accused who is suffering from deadly disease lik...
Tag this Judgment!Hamidbhai Azambhai Malik Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-31-2000
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2636
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. By this Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code), the appellant-original accused has questioned the legality and validity of the conviction and sentence order recorded against him in Session Case No. 84 of 1996, by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharuch, holding him guilty under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for having committed the offence under Section 8(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act, and ordered to undergo minimum sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1 lac, and in default, simple imprisonment for one year, by passing the impugned judgment and order, on 7-2-1997.2. The resume of material facts leading to filing of the present Appeal, may be stated at the outset.3. The appellant, who is the original accused in Session Case No. 84 of 1996, was charged for having committed offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act, on the basis of a complaint lodged b...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kantilal Chhotalal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-31-2000
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Guj)476
S.H. Kapadia, J.The short point which arises for consideration in this appeal is : whether reassortment charges were includible in business profits while calculating export profits as per the formula : business profits X export turnover/total turnover.2. The facts of this appeal are as follows3. We are concerned with assessment year 1989-90. During the said year, assessee received reassortment charges. According to the trade practice, whenever a foreign buyer approached the assessee who was not able to supply the diamonds, the assessee approached other diamond traders. The said traders would, thereafter, send the goods to the foreign buyer on approval business. If the foreign buyer approves the goods, the sale would take place directly between the trader and the foreign buyer for which the assessee got 1 per cent commission named as reassortment charges. In substance, the said reassortment charges constituted commission received by the assessee from the local parties in India from thei...
Tag this Judgment!Jadav Prabhatbhai Jethabhai Vs. Parmar Karsanbhai Dhulabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Guj118; (2001)1GLR16
J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. Whether the alienation of immovable property by the de facto guardian of a minor is, always void and whether it is obligatory for the minor to get it quashed by legal process and whether the minor is also obliged to resort to such legal process within the period of three years upon attaining the majority, are the questions forming the theme and heart of this Full Bench Reference. 2. During the course of the arguments of this appeal, initially, before the learned single Judge, he thought it expedient to refer the 'Entire Appeal' to the Larger Bench for deciding the controversy raised between the parties in view of two contradictory decisions enumerated in the reference order dated 26th August 1993. That is how the First Appeal has come up before this Larger Bench. Ordinarily, the question of law or formulated points under reference are placed before the Larger Bench. However, since the time-gap long and the also fact that the learned brother Judge, who has made referen...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaben Panubhai Patel Through P.O.A. Manojbhai Bhalchandra Jermanwala ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Guj28; (2001)1GLR144
M.S. Shah, J. 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the order dated 6-2-1999 passed by the Inspector General of Registration, Gujarat State, rejecting the petitioners' application under Section 70 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and confirming the order dated 9-10-1998 passed by the Sub-Registrar, Documents under Section 34 of the Act levying fine of Rs. 1,02,800/- for condoning delay in presenting the document for registration.2. The facts leading to filing of this petition, as averred by the petitioner and briefly stated are as under :-2.1 On 19-1-1998 petitioner No. 1-Smt. Ramaben Panubhai Patel executed Sale Deed in favour of petitioner No. 2-Smt. Sandhyaben B. Shah for selling the property in question which is described in paragraph No. 2.1 of the petition being a plot of land admeasuring 284.28 sq. mtrs. at Rajpur-Hirpur in Ahmedabad for a consideration of Rs. 17 lakhs. The Sale Deed was presented ...
Tag this Judgment!Krupaben B. Trivedi Vs. Government of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR153
Miss R. M. Doshit, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates.By order dated 12th May, 1997, made by the Government of Gujarat, the petitioner herein was appointed to be the Tribunal under the Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services Tribunal Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The terms and conditions of her appointment as Tribunal under the Act were determined under the Resolution dated 29th December, 1997 (Annexure-G to the petition). The term relevant for the purposes of this petition was the condition No. 3, which stipulated that the said appointment shall be operative till the Tribunal attains the age of 58 years. However, on 16th April, 1999, the Government issued a notice to the petitioner informing her that Rule 2 of the Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services Tribunal (Terms and Conditions of Service of a person constituting the Tribunal) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1982') provides that the person constituting the Tribunal shall hold office for a period...
Tag this Judgment!Vepar Vikas Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Ghanshyam Lallubhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR186]; (2001)1GLR200
B.C. Patel, J. 1. This matter was placed for hearing before me prior to vacation. However, learned Advocate for the petitioner requested the Court to adjourn the matter on the ground that the matter is likely to be settled. With a view to see that if there is amicable settlement, though the matter was old one, the Court granted time, but today, when the matter is called out, the Court is informed that till today, there is no settlement, and therefore, the Court has to dispose of the matter on merits.2. Mr. Nirav Majmudar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner argued this matter at length. He submitted that the Labour Court, while examining the matter under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has exceeded its limit. He further submitted that the Labour Court accepted the demand which was objected by the petitioner-Bank. However, on a specific question being put by the Court, Mr. Majmudar had to say very frankly that before the L...
Tag this Judgment!Harmista A. Chauhan Vs. Dealer Selection Board and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Guj3
ORDERM.S. Shah, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the decision of the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation awarding dealership for distribution of LPG gas to respondent No. 3.2. Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation or respondent-Corporation) had issued advertisement (Annexure-B) which was published in newspaper dated 17-5-1998 inviting applications for LPG dealership in various categories and for various districts including the LPG dealership for Baroda District which was reserved for women. Last date for submitting application was 15-6-1998. RespondentNo. 3 and others applied in response to the advertisement for the aforesaid dealership in Baroda District which was reserved for women. Interviews were held by the Dealer Selection Board on 12-2-1999. Dealer Selection Board recommended name of respondent No. 3 for the dealership. The petitioner has thereupon filed present petition in April, 1999 challengin...
Tag this Judgment!Sanskarbharti Amrapur Vs. Govt. of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Guj35; (2000)4GLR3368
ORDERR.K. Abichandani, J.1. In this group of matters the petitioners who are the educational institutions have challenged the orders by which their grants have been withheld on the ground that they do not own 15 acres of land for their schools as contemplated by Rule 125 of the Grant in Aid Code for the post-basic schools.2. The action in all these cases initiated by the District Education Officers was triggered because of the Government Orders issued on 20.6.1989 by which it was directed that the grant for the year 1988-89 should be released to such schools provided they were in possession of 50% of the required land as per the Rules and that the ownership rights should be obtained by them in respect of such land and the remaining land should be acquired by them so that they can be given the grant for the current year. On the basis of these orders dated 20.6.1989 which were addressed tothe Director of Higher Education, the Director in turn issued orders on 11.5.1990 to all the Distric...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Balubhai Arjanbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)3GLR1934
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. This appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code ('the Code' for short hereinafter) questions legality, validity and propriety of the judgment and decree dated January 30, 1980 rendered by learned District Judge, Amreli in Regular Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1977 by which judgment and decree dated April 11, 1977 declaring the orders under challenge were illegal and void recorded in Regular Civil Suit No. 234 of 1975 by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Amreli was confirmed and maintained by dismissing the appeal.2. The suit in question was filed by the respondent for the relief of declaration that the orders Exh. Nos. 35, 27, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 30 relating to departmental inquiry were null and void since same were made against the rule of natural justice and -contrary to the rules of departmental inquiry and also for former consequential relief of mandatory injunction to reinstate him in service and give him arrears of pay, increments, promotions and also oth...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »