Gujarat Court February 2001 Judgments
intercontinental (India), Ahmedabad Vs. Indian Sugar and General Indus ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-09-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Guj227
A.L. Dave, J.1. The appellant preferred a Civil Suit in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, bearing Civil Suit No. 4889 of 2000 against the present respondents, seeking relief against invocation of a bank guarantee furnished on behalf of the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 by defendant No. 2. Along with the plaint, an application Ex. 6 came to be seeking for interim injunction against invocation/encashment of the bank guarantee. The learned Judge presiding over Court No. 10, City Civil Court, rejected the application while vacating the ad interim protection granted in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has approached this Court with this appeal.2. For the sake of convenience, the appellant is addressed to as 'the plaintiff' and the respondents as 'the defendants' in this judgment.3. In order that the contentions raised by both the sides may be properly appreciated, certain facts need to be stated.3.1 Defendant No. 1 is a company which regulates sale and expor...
Tag this Judgment!Bharatbhai Ratansing Ninama Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR107
S.K. Keshote, J. 1. This petition is directed by the petitioner-detenu under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16th September, 2000 of District Magistrate, Dahod, under which he was ordered to.be detained as a dangerous person, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985.2. This petition was admitted on 20th of October, 2000 and more than 3 months have already been passed but none of the respondents has cared to file reply thereto. The consequences of non-filing of the reply to the Special Civil Application is well-known i.e., the averments made by the petitioner in the petition stand uncontroverted and are to be taken to be correct.3. Challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 16th September, 2000, the learned Counsel for the petitioner raised manifold contentions, but as this petition deserves acceptance only on one ground, it is not necessary, nor advisabl...
Tag this Judgment!Habibbhai Rajubhai Sindhi Muslaman Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3545; (2001)4GLR939
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. The petitioner, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 22-9-2000 of the District Magistrate, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar. The petitioner was ordered to be detained thereunder a dangerous person in exercise of the powers conferred under Section (i) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985.2. Manifold contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order aforesaid but as this petition deserves acceptance only on one ground it is not necessary as well as advisable to save judicial time of the Court to refer, discuss and record finding on all those contentions. This petition was admitted on 22-9-2000 and despite of having sufficient time to their credit none of the respondents has cared to file reply to the Special Civil Application. Consequence of non filing of reply to the Special Civil Application is...
Tag this Judgment!Hasmukh @ Batlo Chandubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-08-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3377
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Rule of respondent No. 3 is not received back. The respondent No. 3 is neither necessary nor proper party to this petition. None of his action or order is challenged nor he is concerned with the detention of the petitioner. He is only a jail authority where the petitioner would have been detained and as what it is stated, for communication of writ of the order passed in this case, this authority has been impleaded as a party. I fail to see any justification in this approach of the litigants. Where the Court allows the petition, writ of the order has to be sent to the concerned jail where the detenu is detained and for this, the jail authority is not necessary or proper party to the petition. It is unnecessary burden of expenses to be borne by litigant by impleadment of this party as respondent. In view of this fact, it is not necessary to wait for receipt of service of notice of Rule of respondent No. 3.Challenge has been made by petitioner - Hasmukh @ Batlo Chandubh...
Tag this Judgment!Jahid Habibbhai Shipai Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-2001
Reported in: (2001)3GLR1957
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution at the instance of the petitioner-Jahid Habibbhai Shipai, detenu, at present detained in Ahmedabad Central Prison, Ahmedabad, is directed against the order of the Police Commissioner, Rajkot City, dated 29th August, 2000, whereunder he was ordered to be detained by that officer in exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') as a 'dangerous person'.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner raised manifold contentions challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order aforesaid, but as this petition deserves acceptance only on one ground, it is not necessary and also in the larger interest of saving the precious and valuable judicial time of this Court to refer all those contentions, discuss and give findings thereon.3. It is contended that the respondent-detaining authority has not supplied to the petitioner, the sta...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeshbhai Chandubhai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3039; (2001)3GLR1979
K.M. Mehta, J. 1. Rajeshbhai Chandubhai and others, applicants-original accused have filed this Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code') challenging the order dated 19th December, 2000, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Sessions Case No. 130 of 1999. The petitioners have also challenged the order of learned Sessions Judge dated 19th October, 2000, passed below Exh. 37 deposition of Maheshbhai Natvarbhai, order dated 9th November, 2000, passed below Exh. 38 - deposition of Gautam Shanabhai Vasai and order dated 9th November, 2000, passed below Exh. 39 - deposition of Manojbhai Ravjibhai Patel also. So in all, the petitioners have challenged the aforesaid four orders of the learned Sessions Judge, Bharuch. The learned Judge by the said orders was pleased to reject the application filed by the accused at Exh. 55 filed under Section 311 of the Cr. P. C. for recalling the thre...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Nimeshbhai Jashubhai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-2001
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2714
D.H. Waghela, J.1. Both these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution are filed by the students of C.P. Ed. (Certificate Course in Physical Education) and D.P. Ed. (Diploma Course in Physical Education) admitted in the respondent No. 2-institution; praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 5 (State Examination Board) to declare the results of the examinations of the petitioners conducted in April, 1999. By way of interim relief, the process which was to start from 7-11-2000 for admitting the students in the respondent No. 2 institution for the year 2000-2001 was stayed. Both the petitions are by consent of the parties, heard and disposed together by this common judgment.2. Sharirik Shikshan Mahavidyalaya, run by a public trust (in short 'the College') obtained approval of the State Government, for commencing the courses of C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed., in the form of the Resolution dated 12-8-1998 which contained the pre-condition that for the academic year 1998-99, no gr...
Tag this Judgment!ismailsha Rehmansha Diwan Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3000
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This is yet another case where I am constrained to observe that detention order has been passed by the authorities only to have statistical data thereof. Deliberately, lacunae appear to have been left out in the matter so that it may be easy for the petitioner to get himself released from this detention by filing this petition.2. Not only this, after filing of this petition also, the respondents have extended favour to the petitioner which is clearly borne out from the fact that they have not cared to file reply to the special civil application though more than sufficient time was available to their disposal.3. Manifold contentions have been raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the order of detention of the petitioner but as this petition deserves to be allowed only on one ground, it is not necessary to refer, discuss and record the findings thereon. In paragraph-10 of the special civil application, the petitioner states that despite of demand mad...
Tag this Judgment!Shivalaya Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Shantaben T. Patel and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR426
D.P. Buch, J.1. The appellant above named, has preferred this First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30-10-1982 recorded by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Bharuch in Special Civil Suit No. 75 of 1980 under which the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit of the original plaintiff for specific performance of the suit agreement. However, the learned trial Judge granted a decree in favour of the appellant-original plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 25,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 9-6-1980. The learned trial Judge further directed that the parties shall bear their own costs in the suit. The appellant-original plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of an agreement to purchase the property mentioned in the judgment impugned before this Court. The trial Court has dismissed the suit as aforesaid, and therefore, the appellant-original plaintiff has preferred this appeal before this Court.2. The respondents above named have taken up a prel...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nutan Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR519(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this reference at the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred to us for our opinion in respect of the assessment year 1984-85 :'1. Whether medical benefits and house rent allowance paid to the managing directors were to be considered for computing the disallowance under Section 40(c) of the Act ?2. Whether house rent allowance paid to the employees of the company was to be considered for the purpose of computing the disallowance under Section 40A(5) of the Act ?3. Whether all the tours undertaken by a person during the year were to be grouped together and only thereafter the limits laid down in Rule 6D be applied ?'We have heard Mr. B.B. Naik, learned counsel for the Revenue, instructed by M.R. Bhat and Co. Though served, none appears for the respondent-asses-see.2. At the hearing of this reference, Mr. Naik points out that the issue regarding reimbursement of medical benefits is covered by the decisions of this court in Gujarat Steel Tube...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »