Gujarat Court August 2000 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gopalbhai Oghadbhai Parekh Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-2000
Reported in: (2002)1GLR89
K.R. Vyas, J.1. The appellant-Gopalbhai Parekh, serving as an Extension Officer of Bhachau Taluka Panchayat at the relevant time was charged for the offences punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Old Act) by the learned Special Judge, Kutch at Bhuj for accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 150/- from the complainant. The original-accused No. 2 Khoda Ranchhod Ayer was charged for the offence punishable under Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code for abetting the accused No. 1. At the end of the trial, the learned Judge, by his judgment and order dated 4th November, 1987 passed in Special Case No. 2 of 1985, convicted the accused No. 1 for offence punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer R. I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo S. I. for six months. The said accused was also convicted for offence punishable under Sectio...
Crane Owners Association and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1189
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J. 1. This is a petition by the owners of cranes individually and through their Association. The petitioners call in question certain provisions of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 as amended from to time to time and particularly the amendment introduced to it by the Gujarat Act No. 13 of 1995 published in Gujarat Government Gazette Extra Ordinary dated 31-7-1995 and the notification issued thereunder published in Gujarat Government Gazette Extra Ordinary dated 31-7-1995 whereby tax at increased rates have been imposed on mobile cranes mounted on motor vehicles.2. Bombay Motor Vehicles Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1958') by its charging Section 3 empowers the State Government to impose the tax on motor vehicles by notification in the Official Gazette but at a rate not exceeding the maximum rates specified in its Schedule appended to the Act. The Schedules appended to the Act were amended from time to lime to specify the maximum rates of...
Khushiram Dungromal Jeswani Vs. Dhirubhai Amarsinh Chavda
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-14-2000
Reported in: (2000)3GLR474
M.S. Parikh, J.1. By consent of the learned counsels appearing for both the sides, both these applications have been taken up for hearing and disposal together.2. By way of Election Application No. 3 of 1999 the petitioner has sought for amendment of the main petition by way of addition of para. 8A between para. 8 and para. 9. Following averments have been prayed to be added :-'8A. The petitioner alternatively submits the facts stated hereinabove amount to corrupt practice within the definition of Sec. 123(8) of the Representation of Peoples Act.'3. In so far as the aforesaid amendment is concerned, there is no serious contest for the grant of amendment except that the amendment has been prayed for at a belated stage. The amendment as aforesaid seeks to explain what has already been alleged in the election petition. It neither changes the cause of action nor causes prejudice to the contesting respondent or any other of the respondents. Hence, the same deserves to be granted, but as per...
Arvindkumar N. Bhatt Vs. Police Commissioner of Ahmedabad and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR761
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Learned Advocate Mr. J. B. Pardiwala has appeared for the petitioner. Though notice of rule has been served upon the respondents, none has appeared for the respondents. It is also necessary to be mentioned here that at the time of issuing rule on 22nd November, 1991, this Court (Coram : R. K. Abichandani, J.) has passed an order to the effect that the matter be listed for final hearing in February, 1992 and in the meantime, it will be open to the respondents to consider the matter to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Mr. Pardiwala has submitted that in spite of the said order passed by this Court on 22nd November, 1991, the case of the petitioner has not been considered so far by the respondents for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Brief facts of the present petition are as under :Father of the petitioner, Mr. Natvarlal Muljibhai Bhatt was serving as police constable in the office of the Anti-Corruption Bureau. He joined the service ...
i.H. Mehta Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1305
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Parikh is appearing for the petitioner. Learned A.G.P. Mr. R. V. Desai is appearing for the respondents. In this petition, rule was issued by this Court on 17-7-1987 and the matter was ordered to be heard expeditiously. Respondents have not filed any reply to the present petition.2. The facts of the present petition, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as a clerk on 16-1-1951 in the Revenue Department in the Amreli District. On 15-8-1960, he was promoted as a senior clerk (now deputy mamlatdar) and on 1-6-1980, he was promoted as a mamlatdar and was posted as rojgar project officer at Dhrol, and thereafter as R.R.T., Jamnagar. He served upto 5-10-1981. From 6-10-1981 to 21-7-1986, he worked as Mamlatdar at Ranavav, Junagadh District and in July, again, he was posted as R.R.T., Collector Office, Amreli. According to the petitioner, next promotion is to the post of deputy collector and he was eligible and was entitled to be promoted to t...
Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad and anr. Vs. Po ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1697
C.K. Buch, J. 1. Appellants have filed these appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, against common judgment and award dated 17-12-1997, rendered by the learned Reference Court of City of Ahmedabad in Land Reference Cases Nos. 1 to 27 of 1992. As common questions of facts and law arise for our consideration, we propose to dispose of all these appeals by this common judgment. 2. All the 27 Land References were made by the original land-property holders before the Additional Spl. Land Acq. Officer under Section 18 of the Act. These references were referred to the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. Lands along with superstructure there on in most of the reference cases were acquired for the purpose of construction of 'Express Highway 'under one and same notification. Reference Court, therefore, consolidated all the reference cases and parties had led common, oral as well as document...
Avadh Bihari Amrutlal Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)3GLR506
H.H. Mehta, J.1. This is a Criminal Revision Application filed under Section 401 read with Sec. 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ( in short ' Cr.P.C') filed by original accused of Criminal Case No. 1735 of 1983 which was pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.4, Jamnagar (who will be referred to hereinafter as the learned Magistrate).He has, by filing this Criminal Revision Application challenged the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment Ex.11 dated 24th February, 1989 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar (who will be referred to hereinafter as the learned Appellate Judge') in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1983. By that judgment dt. 24th February, 1989 in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1983, the learned Appellate Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred by the accused i.e.the present Criminal Revision Petitioner and he was pleased to confirm the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Mag...
Heirs of Jayantilal Kanjibhai Vs. Rameshchandra Uttamram
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)3GLR230
J.M. Panchal, J.1. This revision application has been referred to the Larger Bench for disposal in the following circumstances :The petitioners are the owners of property bearing Nondh No.258 situated in Ward No.9, Ambaji Road, Surat. The opponent was inducted as tenant of west side portion of the property at the rent of Rs.40/- per month. According to the petitioners, opponent had paid rent upto July 31, 1975 and as he was in arrears of rent from August 1, 1975, a notice dated November 25, 1975 calling upon him to pay arrears of rent was served. The case of the petitioners was that as the opponent-defendant was not ready and willing to pay rent, they were entitled to get possession of the suit premises on the ground of non-payment of rent. Moreover, according to the petitioners, the defendant had purchased a Bungalow in Ravindra Park Co. op. Housing Society situated at Adajan Road, Surat in the name of his wife and as he had acquired suitable alternative accommodation, he was liable t...
Swil Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: 2005(185)ELT251(Guj); (2001)1GLR581
B.C. Patel, J.1. The petitioner by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the condition No. 5 in a letteraddressed to it, resulting in liability to pay interest for re-exporting warehoused goods which comes to the tune of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- as the goods were warehoused for a period of more than six months.2. Short facts are as under :-The petitioner imported 5215.250 MT copper concentrate - Cero Dominator falling under Sub-heading No. 2603.00, a raw material in loose packing for manufacturing of Copper Cathode - Chapter heading No. 7404.11. The goods were warehoused in private Custom bonded warehouse.3. The raw material was to be utilised. However, as per me Schedule,-the Project could not be commissioned and as per the project report and as per the Survey, before December, 2000, there were no feasibilities of utilising the raw material and hence, the petitioner requested the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs for re-exporting of ...
Parmanand C. Sharma Vs. Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Dept. and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR730
A.L. Dave, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, on October 25, 1994, bearing No.SRD/BKP/ Suo motu/Kutch/14/94, in exercise of powers under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, remanding the matter to District Development Officer (D.D.Q.). Kutch-Bhuj, white setting aside the order of the D.D.O., Kutch-Bhuj bearing No, DP/Rev./NA/49792-93 dated June 19, 1993. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was granted non-agricultural use permission under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Codeby the District Development Officer in respect of land. bearing Survey No. 98 of village Galpadar, admeasuring 20,235 sq. mts. That order is Annexure-A. The said permission was granted for commercial-cum-service oriented purposes upon certain conditions. After the permission was granted, the petitioner has developed the land for construction of a Three Star Hotel-cum-Resort. After the lapse of about one year, the Sec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »