Gujarat Court April 2001 Judgments
Kalkisinh Imanallah Duleray Godsan Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Guj1; (2001)2GLR1521
Y.B. Bhatt, J. 1. This is a petition professed to be a petition under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the petitioner who professes to be a 'Practitioner of Naturopathy'. 2. Unfortunately, the petition as presented to the Court, as conceived by the petitioner and as argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is a complex mixture of apprehensions and misconceived notions. 3. On the one hand, it is contended that as a simple practitioner of a simple basic science in tune with nature, and professing to apply the principles of natureto the human body in order to maintain and restore good health, would not amount to 'practice of medicine' within the meaning of any law applicable to such persons. On the other hand, it appears that the petitioner is bent upon calling himself as a 'doctor', is bent upon professing and advertising himself as a 'Doctor of Naturopathy', and at the same time, appears to be desirous of setting up a professional educational instit...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalji Laxmanji Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2663
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. This matter is sent by the petitioner from jail. In this petition he has challenged the order dated 28-9-2000 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Mehsana under which he was ordered to be kept under police custody at Special Jail, Porbandar for two years from 24-7-2000. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mehsana under his order dated 24-7-2000 ordered for extemment of the petitioner for two years from Districts Mehsana, Patan, Kheda, Banaskantha, Ahmedabad (Rural) and Gandhinagar. This order has been accepted by him as what Mr. Shah states that against this order, the petitioner has not filed any appeal. He violated the term of the order of externment, meaning thereby, without prior permission of the authority, he entered in the prohibited area and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Mehsana while exercising powers as conferred upon him under Sub-section (2) of Section 62 passed the impugned order.3. Learned Counsel for the parties ar...
Tag this Judgment!Mansukhlal Nanjibhai Patel Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR341(Guj)
B.C. Patel, J.1. These two petitions are filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of the order dated June 20, 2000, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Tribunal') and notice dated September 4, 2000, issued by the Revenue under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). The short facts necessary for disposal of these petitions which are required to be stated are as under.2. Respondent No. 2, Ambica Realities Pvt. Ltd., is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its office at Rajkot. The petitioner is a silent director of the said respondent No. 2-company whereas one Mr. D. V. Jethani was the managing director who was controlling finance as well as other business activities of the said company.3. The Revenue carried out search and seizure proceedings under Section 132 of the Act in December, 1996, at the office premises of the company as well ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikajibhai Ranchhodbhai Makwana Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4457
D.P. Buch, J.1. The petitioner-original complainant has preferred this revision application under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 challenging the judgment and acquittal order dated 30.8.2000 recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge of the City Sessions Court, Court No. 15, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 59/99 under which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge allowed the said appeal of contesting respondent No. 2 herein and set aside the judgment and conviction order recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 2058/97 and directed that the fine be refunded to respondent No. 2 herein. The present petitioner had filed Criminal Case No. 2058/97 on 7.10.1997 against respondent No. 2 herein for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act'). After registering the complaint and after hearing the evidence, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate found that the second respondent herein was acquitted of o...
Tag this Judgment!Pratapsinh Viraji Chudasma Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR2902
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. R.V. Sampat for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. D.P.Joshi for the respondent State.2. Rule. Service of rule is waived by Mr. D.P. Joshi, learned APP appearing for the respondent State.3. The petitioner herein, who has been arrested in connection with Mangrol Police Station CR No. I-123 of 2000 for the offence under section 376, 452, 511, 323 of the Indian Penal Code has prayed for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. As per the facts stated by the complainant Jiviben, wife of Haja Karshan, aged about 35 years, On 14.10.2000, at about 1.00 a.m., while she was sleeping in her house alone and while her husband was sleeping out side in the open, at that time, their neighbouring land owner Pratapbha Viraji Darbar i.e. the petitioner herein had entered her house and she, at once, got from her sleep upon feeling his touch. He, at once, removed his pent demanded intercourse to which she had said that she was having rela...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanshyamdasji Guru Harikishandasji and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR267
C.K. Buch, J. 1. Rule in both these Applications. Service of Rule is waived by learned A.P.P. Mr. M. A. Bukhari for respondent No. 1-State and by Mr. M. R. Shah, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 in Misc. Cri. Application No. 5810 of 2000. Similarly, service of Rule is waived by learned A.P.P. Mr. N. D. Gohil for respondent No. 1-State and by Mr. M. R. Shah, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 in Misc. Cri. Application No. 2185 of 2001. 1-A. Both these Misc. Criminal Applications are preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying bail by the petitioners-accused of Sessions Case No. 369 of 1999 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nadiad. Sessions Case is registered on the strength of the charge-sheet filed at the conclusion of investigation of F.I.R. registered on 29-10-1998 by C.B.I., Mumbai vide C.R. No. R.C. 3(S)/S.C.B./98-Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 365 of I.P.C. C.B.I., Mumbai on investigation, charge-sheeted five numbers of acc...
Tag this Judgment!Koli Kalaji Jamaji and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-2001
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2093
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Koli Kalaji Jamaji and others, petitioners, have filed this writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Secretary, Revenue Department (Disputes), Ahmedabad dated 17-9-1985 and also notice under Section 152 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code dated 15-4-1986 issued by the Mamlatdar, Dhanera, by which he has ordered them to pay penalty for unauthorised occupation of river site of Sipu.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under :-2.1 In the petition it has been stated that the petitioners are the owners of lands in village Nani Maliudi and their lands were acquired by the State Government for Sipu Irrigation Project. The petitioners were not paid compensation for the acquisition of their lands nor were they given any alternative site for the above lands.2.2 It was further stated that as the petitioners have not received any compensation or alternative site, they requested to the Executive Engineer (Sipu Dam), Dhanera, to ...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Maganlal Vora Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2192
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 1st April, 2000 in Special Civil ApplicationNo. 5981 of 1999 with Special Civil Application No. 1365 of 2000 and Special Civil Application No. 9076 of 2000 (Satish Maganlal Vora v. Union of India, reported in 2001 (3) GLR 2173), rejecting these writ petitions. Both the appeals have been argued together fully and finally by both the sides since they involved common questions and are filed by the same appellant, who had filed these pelicions. 2. In Special Civil Application No. 5981 of 1999, the appellant had challenged the validity of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractice's) Order, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Order of 1998') and seeking a declaration that the petitioner's product 'Patrex' was not covered by the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and impugned...
Tag this Judgment!Adani Exports Ltd. and anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2736
Kundan Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the relevant materials on record.2. This petition has been filed for declaring that in the absence of any agreement between the parties as regards the payment of 'vessel overage extra' it is not permissible to the respondent-Company to demand the said extra overage premium from the petitioner-Company while setting its claim under the two marine policies in question and for a direction to the respondent-Company to pay full amount of claim demanded by the petitioner from the respondent-Company under two marine policies in question and for permanently prohibiting respondent-Company from seeking to recover any amount of overage extra premium from the petitioner company while releasing due payment in favour of the petitioner-Company and for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 15-5-2000 to the extent to overage extra amount is sought to be recovered from the petitioner-Company as being of violative of Articl...
Tag this Judgment!Special Land Acquisition Officer, Himatnagar Vs. Nathaji Kacharaji, Th ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-04-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR462
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J. 1. These appeals have been referred to the Full Bench on a legal question of limitation based on interpretation of provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the course of hearing and decision of the first appeals, the Division Bench (Coram : Y. B. Bhatt and C. K. Buch, JJ.), finds that in view of several decisions of the Supreme Court and Full Bench of this Court which we shall hereinafter deal in detail, several decisions rendered by the Division Benches of this Court are no longer good law and are required to be overruled. 2. Since the question referred is purely one of law and based on interpretation of provisions of Section 18 of the Act, we need not discuss the facts of the first appeals. It is enough for our purpose to state that the applications made by the land owners to the Collector for seeking reference of the cases to the Court on the quantum of compensation were held by the learned Judge o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »