Gujarat Court August 2000 Judgments
Swarup Kunvarba Balvantsinh Udavat Vs. Pratapsinh Nathusinh Jadeja
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR868
H.H. Mehta, J. 1. At the time of admission hearing of this Appeal From Order, the learned advocates for both the parties requested this Court to admit this appeal and dispose of this appeal finally. At the request of both the parties' advocates, this Appeal From Order is admitted and the matter is taken up for final hearing.2. This is an appeal under Sec. 104(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 read with Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, filed by original defendants challenging the legality and validity of joint order dated 10th August, 2000 passed below application Exhs. 5 and 95 in Special Civil Suit No. 11 of 2000 which is pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Himatnagar (who will be referred to hereinafter as the learned Judge of the trial Court). 3. The appellants are the defendants, while the respondent is a plaintiff in aforesaid Special Civil Suit No.11 of 2000, and therefore, the parties will be referred to as the plaintiffs and defendants...
Tag this Judgment!Hasem Mohamad Jeva Vs. Shantaben W/O Parvinbhai Vasava
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR757
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. This group of one appeal and 17 writ petitions arose out of common judgement and also common accident against common opponents. Therefore, upon joint request they are being disposed of by this common judgement. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The theme of this group of 18 matters is as to whether exclusion of respondent No. 5 original opponent No. 3 Insurance Company by the Tribunal from making loss good to the insured under the impugned judgement and awards in favour of the original claimants and against the driver and the owner of the motor truck involved in the accident.2. With a view to appreciate the sole issue let us have a skeleton projection of material facts giving rise to this group of matters. A motor truck No. GQC 6137 owned by the appellant in appeal and petitioner in other Special Civil Applications original opponent No. 2 driven by one Dherubhai Mansinh Vasava, original opponent No. 1 in all 18 claim petitions was proceedings from village Mokhadi ...
Tag this Judgment!Dean Vs. Rabari Jitendrakumar Arjanbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3334
M.R.Calla, J.1. The three Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 20.9.99 whereby the learned single Judge allowed three Special Civil Applications Nos.4593, 5977 and 3885 of 1999. All these three Letters Patent Appeals were admitted on 1.3.2000 and were directed to be listed for final hearing. During the pendency of these Letters Patent Appeals, Special Civil Application No.4108/2000 was filed on 25.4.2000, Special Civil Application No.4123/2000 was filed on 24.4.2000, Special Civil Application No.5189/2000 was filed on 25.5.2000, Special Civil Application No.5260/2000 was filed on 31.5.2000 and Special Civil Application No.5893/2000 was filed on 19.6.2000; while Special Civil Application No.4295/99 had already been filed on 18.1.99 even during the pendency of the three Special Civil Applications. This Special Civil Application No.4295/99 had been filed by Adijati Rabari Seva Mandal and two others as a public interest litigation. Special Civil A...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupendra Manubhai Mistry Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR812
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. List has been revised thrice but none appeared for the revisionist. As such in the 2nd sitting Shri L.R. Pujari, learned A.P.P. has been heard and the impugned order has been examined.2. The revision is directed against the order dated 9.4.1999 of Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, whereby he has rejected the application of the revisionist under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge.3. It appears that the charge sheet was submitted by the P.S.I., A.C.B., against the revisionist for committing offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The contention in the application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. was that P.S.I., A.C.B. is not authorised to carry out investigation u/s. 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and as such the entire investigation is nulity and no charge can be framed on the basis of material collected during such unauthorised investigation.4. I had examined all the grounds of attack contained in the...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Chemicals Limited Vs. Adityana Nagar Panchayat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-30-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1538
H.R. Shelat, J. 1. The petitioner-Company, situated within the local limits of the opponent impugns the validity and legality of the claim, demand and notice dated 26th October, 1991 regarding levy of octroi duty of the bygone period on the ground that the same are violative of Arts. 14, 19(1)(g) and other provisions of the Constitution of India, etc.2. The facts leading the petitioner to prefer this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India may in brief be stated. The petitioner-Company is a Company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Soda Ash. Lime Stone and Salt are the basic raw materials used in manufacturing process of Soda Ash. The Company is the holder of lime stone quarry on lease in Survey Nos. 602 and 516 of village Adityana, Taluka-Ranavav, in Junagadh District. The office is situated in Plot No. 255, of Survey No. 602. The Company brings from Porbandar to its quarry office, machineries, spare-parts and...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Ramanbhai Govindbhai Merai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-30-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR2947
K.R. Vyas, J.1. The State of Gujarat, by way of this appeal, has challenged the judgment and order dated 13.1.1988 passed in Special Case No. 3 of 1985 by the learned Special Judge, Surat acquitting the respondent for offences punishable under section 161 of the IPC and sections 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.2. The respondent at the relevant time was serving as an Extension Officer (Construction) in Taluka Panchayat, Mangrol. The complainant Kalidas Vasava, Ex. 5, at the relevant time was the Sarpanch of Ranakpur village under Mangrol taluka. For the purpose of constructing public well in the village, the village panchayat, by passing a resolution, applied for grant from the District Panchayat and the District Panchayat granted sanction to the amount of Rs. 18,000/- for the said purpose. The first instalment of Rs. 4000/- out of the sanctioned amount was released by the Taluka Development Officer in favour of the complainant on 20.4.1983. As a part of...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Chetan Himatlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-30-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3010
A.L. Dave, J.1. This is a revision application preferred by the State of Gujarat on being aggrieved by an order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, on 9.2.1995 below application Ex.47 in Sessions Case No.97 of 1993.2. The facts of the case are that, the opponent is the accused in the Sessions Case, who has been charged for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecutrix is that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 qua the prosecutrix-Dipti, who was under 16 years of age. For proving the age of the victim, the prosecution relied upon 'birth certificate' issued by the school in which the prosecutrix had taken education. During cross-examination, Bhartiben, mother of the prosecutrix appears to have stated that birth of the prosecutrix was registered with Surendranagar Municipality. After the said witness, several other witnesses were examined by the prosecution an...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat S.T. Driver Conductor Traffic Staff Association Vs. Gsrtc
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-30-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR376
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Learned advocate Mr. Falgun Brahmbhatt is appearing for the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. H.C. Raval is appearing for the respondent Corporation. Learned Government Pleader Mr. A.D.Oza is appearing for the respondent State of Gujarat in this group of petitions.2. Earlier, notice was issued on 2nd September, 1999 and, thereafter, rule has been issued with interim relief directing the respondent corporation to deposit the amount of House Rent Allowance which would otherwise be payable to each of the concerned workmen in a separate account. Thereafter, considering the joint request made by the learned advocates for the parties, that in view of the decision given by this court in special civil application no. 7278 of 1999 which is having direct impact on these petitions, this group of petitions was ordered to be treated as part heard by this court. Thereafter, the petitioner in the main special civil application no. 6668 of 1999 was directed to file separate one page p...
Tag this Judgment!Mavjibhai S. Patel and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: (2002)1GLR410
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard Mr. K.B. Pujara, learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioners and Ms. Hansa Punani, learned A.G.P., appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. In the present petition, Rule has been issued by this Court on 2nd May, 1991 and granted interim relief which continued till further order. It is required to be noted that respondent authorities have not filed any reply to the present petition and not challenged any averments made in the petition. In the present petition, order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Tenancy/B.A./567 of 1987 decided on 29th August, 1988 is under challenge.3. The brief facts of the present petition are as under : The petitioners are Kachchi Patels and agriculturists by occupation since generations and they were holding agricultural lands jointly with their brothers at Khedbrahma in Sabarkantha District, but as it was difficult to maintain their families in the small income from such lands of inferior quality, the petitioners migrated to ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: [2001]247ITR690(Guj)
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J.1. This reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', arises out of two cases, Reference Application No. 338/Ahd. of 1984 and Reference Application No. 339/ Ahd. of 1984. As is apparent from the statement of case submitted by the Tribunal in the aforesaid two reference applications, the following questions of law are referred for our answer :'Reference Application No. 338/Ahd. of 1984 : 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has been right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim development rebate on the expenditure incurred on the factory compound wall as claimed ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the building rented out to the outsiders ? Reference Application No. 339/Ahd. of 1984 : 1. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal has been right in law in holding that in computing the capital employed ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »