Gujarat Court July 2001 Judgments
Rajeshkumar Bansilal Khamar Vs. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-31-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Guj156
ORDER1. Rule, Service of rule is waived by Mr. Tushar Mehta for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. P. R. Abichandani, Ld. AGP for respondent Nos. 2 & 3. 2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner who was earlier granted a licence for carrying on business as a general commission agent and as a trader in Stall No. 11-A the Sardar Patel Market Yard under the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (hereinafter referred to as the 'APMC'( w.e.f. 17-8-96 on annual basis has challenged the non-renewal of the licence by the Impugned resolution dated 29-4-2000 (Annexure H) passed by the APMC which was thereafter confirmed by the Director of Agricultural Market and Rural Finance on 23-6-2000 (Annexure I). 3. After the licence was given to the petitioner on 17-8-96 as per Annexure A, the licence was renewed every year w.e.f. 1st October of the subsequent years. However when the petitioner submitted his applica-tion for renewal for the year 1999-2000 commencing from 1st Octo...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Shamjibhai Makwana Vs. Sub-divisional Magistrate, Bhavnagar an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: (2002)2GLR1158
H. K. Rathod, J.1. Heard Ms. Banna Dutta, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. H. L. Jani, learned A.P.P., for the respondents.2. In the present petition, the show-cause notice has been issued on 11-9-2000 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhavnagar to the petitioner under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Thereafter, the reply was submitted by the petitioner on 12-10-2000, and thereafter, the externment order has been passed on 14-12-2000 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhavnagar in Externment Case No. 28 of 2000 for a period of one year. The petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, and the same was rejected on 10-4-2001.3. Ms. Banna Dutta, learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that looking to the show-cause notice, no reasons have been given by the concerned authority as to why the petitioner has been removed from the adjoining districts i.e. Surendranagar, Rajkot, Amreli, Junagadh and Ahme...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Harishbhai Bhanubhai and anr. Vs. Chief Post Master, Ahmedabad G ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Guj21
ORDERM.S. Shah, J.1. Rule. Mr. Bipin I. Mehta waives service of Rule for respondent.In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners, two in number, are sons of late Mr. Bhanubhai B. Patel andlate Mrs. Kamuben Bhanubhai Patel who subscribed to the public provident fund where they were permitted to open PPF Account No. 337 in General Post Office at Ahmedabad on 28-3-1987. The deceased continued to make subscriptions to the above account from year to year and interest on the subscriptions was credited in the said account from time to time. The pass book of the said PPF account is annexed at Annexure A to the petition. Both the account holders unfortunately expired in an accident on 13-11-1999. The petitioners, who are both sons of the deceased, obtained succession certificate dated 24-4-2000 from the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad in Civil Misc. Application No. 1007 of 1999. The petitioners then submitted an application dated 11/ 15-5-2000 to the respondent-Chief Po...
Tag this Judgment!B.R. Shah Vs. Collector, Bharuch and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR210
N.G. Nandi, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has been seeking to quash and set aside the order, dated 25-5-1988 passed in Appeal No. 137 of 1987 by the Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), with further prayer to hold the petitioner a 'specified Government servant' under Gujarat Civil Service Rules and entitled to all benefits and to lake resort to remedial measures and also praying to quash and set aside the order terminating the service of the petitioner as illegal, violative of principles of natural justice, with the relief of reinstatement in service with full back-wages.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a pan-time Sweeper since 1979 and was discharging his duties to the satisfaction of the respondents; that the service of the petitioner was terminated somewhere in. the year 1981. The petitioner challenged the said termination order passed by the respondents before the Tr...
Tag this Judgment!B.M. Gupta Vs. Ashok Chandulal Bhatt
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3760
D.P. Buch, J.1. Rule. Mr. S.J. Dave, Ld. APP waives service of Rule. By consent of learned advocates for the parties, this application is being heard and disposed of finally.2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'Code') for quashing and setting aside the order passed on 7.11.2000 by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 13 at Ahmedabad in connection with Sessions Case No. 178/1986 and also for a relief for cancelling the said order in toto.3. It appears from the record that the aforesaid case No. 178/86 is pending before the City Sessions Court at Ahmedabad against respondent nos. 1 to 9 hereinabove. It relates to the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 333, 148, 149, 152, 153, 506, 186, 188, read with Section 120-B and 34 of IPC and also under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act.4. The petitioner has contended that the aforesaid case is pending before the aforesaid Court on the allegation that one ...
Tag this Judgment!Bahadur Ali Babubhai Charania Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3161
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Kanabar for the petitioner and Mr.H.L.Jani, learned APP for the respondent State of Gujarat. Brief facts of the present petition are as under:Initially, wife of the present petitioner namely Rasidaben, his daughter Aminaben and son Imran filed an application for maintenance being criminal miscellaneous application no. 77 of 1990 in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amreli against the petitioner which came to be allowed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amreli by his judgment and order dated 30.11.1991 by directing the husband - petitioner herein to pay to the respondent wife an amount of Rs.400.00 p.m. and Rs.250.00 each to the son and daughter total of which comes to Rs.900.00 from the date of the said application. Against the said order dated 30.11.1991, as mentioned in para 7 page 29, the petitioner approached the Court of learned sessions Judge, Amreli by filing revision application challenging the very same ord...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrakant Keshavlal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-26-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR750
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. The order dated 2-3-2001 of Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 19 of 2001 is under challenge in this revision.2. The instant revision has been filed under the following circumstances :A complaint was filed against 18 persons named as accused. Surajben was the complainant. On this complaint, an order was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara on 14-11-2000 under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing investigation to be made on the complaint by Gorva Police Station. On plain reading of the complaint, the Chief Judicial Magistrate found that, it appeared that mischief has been played with the documentary evidence, and if police investigation is carried out for the same, necessary documents are required to be seized and thorough investigation is necessary. The complaint was under Sections 420, 465, 466, 446, 468, 471, 506(2), 120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears from the record ...
Tag this Judgment!Pravinbhai Khimjibhai Thacker Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-26-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1317; (2001)4GLR3408
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard Mr. H.R. Prajapati, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. H.L. Jani, learned AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Ms.P.J.Davawala, learned advocate for the respondent No.4.2. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 18/4/2001 passed by the District Magistrate, Kachchh-Bhuj under the provisions of Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supply of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.B.M. Act). The petitioner had been initially detained in Spermatia Central Jail and later on, transferred to the Mehsana District Jail. The ground of detention has been communicated under Section 8(1) of the Act to the petitioner by the detaining authority. The respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 have not filed any reply, but the respondent No.4 has filed affidavit-in-reply.3. Mr. H.R. Prajapati, learned advocate for the petitioner has challenged the detention order on various grounds. The learned advocate for...
Tag this Judgment!Sayaji Iron and Engg. Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-25-2001
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas675(Guj); [2002]253ITR749(Guj)
A. R. Dave, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred to this court for its opinion, under the provisions of Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C'.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in disallowing 1/6th of the total car expenses and depreciation claimed by the assessee because of the personal use of the car entrusted to the director by him ?'2. The learned advocate, Shri Manish Shah, for Mr. J.P. Shah, has appeared for the applicant-assessee whereas the learned advocate, Shri Bharat Naik, has appeared for the respondent.3. The assessee is a private limited company. For the purpose of its business itowned several vehicles. For the assessment year 1979-80, the assessee hadincurred expenditure to the tune of Rs. 96,653 on the vehicles maintained byit. The assessee had claimed the said amount as ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh T. Rabari Vs. Director of Primary Education
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-25-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR934]
M.R. Calla, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 11th April 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby Special Civil Application has been rejected.2. The original petitioner and the appellant herein was appointed pursuant to an advertisement whereby applications were invited from persons possessing the qualifications in Agricultural Trade though the Trade Instructor was required to be appointed for Computer training. The interviews were held on 17th Aug.2000. The Selection Committee recommended the name of the petitioner-appellant and on the basis of the recommendations, he was appointed in Shri S.H.Modi Training College for Men, Ranuj Taluka, Dist. Patan. This institution gets grant from the Government and the Government was required to ensure that only qualified and eligible persons are appointed in this institution. The appointment given to the appellant - petitioner was not found to be in order by the Jt. Director and the Jt.Director found that t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »