Gujarat Court April 2002 Judgments
Manojkumar Ramjibhai Dholiya Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR708
C.K. Buck, J.1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Bharda appearing for the applicant. The applicant is the original accused against whom a Criminal Case No. 5693 of 1998 was registered on a complaint filed by Police Inspector, Navsari Town police station vide Crime Register No. III-411 of 1998 dated 10th June, 1998. The accused after investigation was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 66(1)(B) and 85(1)(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act.2. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Navsari, vide judgment and order dated 27th July, 1999 convicted the present applicant for the offences punishable under Section 66(1)(B) and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for three months and also imposed fine of Rs. 500/-. On account of default, he was further directed to undergo S.I. for two months. For rest of the charges, he was acquitted by the trial Court.3. Against the order of conviction recorded by the learned J.M.F.C. the applicant had preferred appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Akilkhan Mehboobkhan Pathan and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR838
R.R. Tripathi, J. 1. This appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 24th December, 1997 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Surat, in Sessions Case No. 289 of 1996, by which the appellants are convicted under Sections 8, 9, 10, 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('N.D.P.S. Act' for short) and punished with R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1 lac (Rupees One lac only), in default to undergo R.I. for one year. 2. On 13th August, 1996, Shri H. S. Ninama was serving as a Police Inspector at Salabatpura Police Station; when he was present in the Police Station, at about 3-30 p.m., he received an information that at 'Akbar Sayeed-Na-Tekra', a person named Akilkhan Mehboobkhan Pathan and Merazbibi Jalilkhan Rehmankhan Pathan are possessing contraband substance, brown sugar, and are selling the same. Akilkhan procures the supply of brown sugar and Merazbibi assists in getting customers for...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. D.S. Virawala Suragwala
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR405(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. These two references raise common questions in the case of the same assessee for different assessment years on the aspect as to whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 5(1)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of the new building constructed in place of the old recognised palace.2. For the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee had declared the net wealth of Rs. 11,12,243 on July 1, 1977. The return was filed in the capacity of individual. During the proceedings, the assessment was made in the status of a 'Hindu undivided family', as requested by the assessee. According to the assessee, he had succeeded to the Gaddi of the former State of Vadia on the death of his father. According to him, he was in possession of a palace at Vadia which was exempted for taxation purposes under the notification issued under the Part 'B' States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950. The said palace was declared as the official residence of the ex-Ruler of V...
Tag this Judgment!Saiyed Munir Ali Ahmedmiya and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Guj39
ORDERA.R. Dave, J.1. The petitioners are parents of students who are to appear at Std. X or XII examinations, which are to be conductedby respondent No. 4 Board on and from 18-4-2002. It has been submitted by the petitioners that on account of communal disturbances prevailing in the State of Gujarat, it might not be safe for their children to attend the examination centres notified by the respondent Board and the minority community students should be given an option to appear at centers which are situated in a locality which is predominantly occupied by the minority community.2. It has been submitted by learned advocate Dr. Mukul Sinha appearing for the petitioners that initially the Board was to conduct the examinations on 18th March 2002 but on account of disturbances prevailing in the State, the examinations had been postponed and they are now to commence from 18-4-2002. It has been submitted by him that formerly, when the examinations were to be held on 18-3-20002, the examination ...
Tag this Judgment!General Manager (Project), Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR66]; (2003)ILLJ862Guj
D.H. Waghela, J. 1. Rule. Learned counsel for the respondent waives service.2. By this petition styled as a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Corporation ('ONGC' for short) has challenged the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference ITC No. 10/1993, whereby, 18 employees concerned have been ordered to be regularised in the service with effect from April 1, 1993 with consequential benefits and costs of Rs. 5,000/-3. The dispute referred by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its order dated April 29, 1993 to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, reads as under:'Whether the action of the management of ONGC, Ahmedabad Project in engaging 18 contract labourers through various contractors for last 5 years on the work of perennial nature is justified? If not, to what relief these 18 workmen so employed are entitled to and from what date and what directions are necessary in the matter?'4. The Trade Union represent...
Tag this Judgment!Cwt Vs. D.S. Virawala Suragwala
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-2002
Reported in: [2002]122TAXMAN782(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. These two references raise common questions in the case of the same assessee for different assessment years on the aspect as to whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of the new building constructed in place of the old recognised Palace.2. For the assessment years 1977-78, the assessee had declared the net wealth of Rs. 11,12,243 on 1-7-1977. The return was filed in the capacity of individual during the proceedings, the assessment was made in the status of 'Hindu undivided family', as requested by the assessee. According to the assessee, he had succeeded to the Gaddi of the former State of Vadia on the death of his father. According to him, he was in possession of a Palace at Vadia which was exempted for taxation purposes under the notification issued under Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950. The said palace was declared as the official residenc...
Tag this Judgment!D.B. Jadeja and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3705
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard Mrs. K.A. Mehta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners - employees and Mr. H.D. Dave, learned A.G.P. on behalf of the respondent No. 1(a) & (b) State Authority as well as Mr. C.L. Soni, learned Advocate for respondent-Company, appearing on behalf of the respective parties in these petitions.2. In Special Civil Application No. 2421 of 2001, Rule has been issued by this Court on 9th April, 2001 to be heard with Special Civil Application No. 6365 of 1999. Similarly, in Spl.C.A. No. 6365 of 1999, Rule issued on 20th October, 1999 returnable on 24th November, 1999. Affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 by Shri S.A. Kadari, Under Secretary, Industries and Mines Department on 29th February, 2000. Affidavit-in reply has also been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 on 25th November, 1999, and thereafter, rejoinder was filed by the petitioner on 13th January, 2000. Affidavit in-sur-rejoinder and further affidavit of the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Kadarbhai Kasambhai Pirvani Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)1GLR109
B. J. SHETHNA, J. 1. Rule. Mr. K.C. Shah waives service of rule for respondent-State.2. In pursuance of the order dated 5-4-2002 passed by this Court, applicant-accused is present and I.O., Mr. D. S. Thakore, P. I. is present through learned A.P.P. Mr. Shah before the Court. The applicant-accused Kadarbhai stated that in spite of best efforts he was unable to raise funds, therefore, some more time be granted. This request was vehemently objected by learned A.P.P. Shri Shah on the instructions from I. O., Shri Thakore. He submitted that because of the failure of the applicant to deposit amount, families of thousands of depositors of the Bank are practically ruined. He submitted that enough indulgence is shown to him, therefore, the Court should decide this matter on merits.3. The petitioner is original accused in connection with the F.I.R. registered as CR No. I 128 of 2001 with Bhavnagar City 'C' Division Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 409 and 34 I.P...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bhailalbhai R. Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)4GLR3500
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard Mr. A.M. Dagli, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation and Mr. Jaswant K. Shah, learned Advocate for respondent-workman.2. Rule. Mr. Dagli, learned Advocate for petitioner-Corporation and Mr. J.K. Shah, learned Advocate for respondent-workman waive formal service of Rule in these cross petitions on behalf of the respective parties. Therefore, these two matters are heard finally at the admission stage with the consent of the parties.3. In these two petitions, both the parties have challenged the common award passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference No. 131 of 1996 dated 5th November, 2001. The Labour Court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 40% back wages of the interim period. Today, when these two petitions, learned Advocate Mr. Dagli for petitioner-Corporation has tendered before this Court draft amendment in a petition-Spl.C.A. No. 3104 of 2002 filed by petitioner-Corporation. Said draft amendment i...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Maganlal Bhikhabhai Raval
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)4GLR3575
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard Mr. K.S. Zaveri, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation.2. The petitioner-Corporation has challenged the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference No. 481 of 1998 dated 8th September, 2000, wherein the punishment imposed by the petitioner-Corporation by order dated 6th May, 1991 stoppage of seven increments with cumulative effect has been modified as without cumulative effect with clarification that the respondent-workman is not entitled to any amount of arrears of difference salary because of the said modification.3. Learned Advocate Mr. Jhaveri appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation has submitted that this is clear case of dishonesty and misappropriation as the respondent-workman had recovered the fare from four passengers of Rs. 20/-. It is submitted that at the time when the bus was checked, tickets were not issued to the passengers, and therefore, considering serious misconduct committed by the respondent-wo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »