Gujarat Court February 2003 Judgments
Kalubhai Becharbhai Gohil Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)2GLR1612
P. B. Majmudar, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the externment order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhavnagar, dated 24th May, 2002, by which an externment order is passed against the petitioner in Externment Case No. 8 of 2002. The aforesaid order is passed under Section 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. By the impugned order, the petitioner is externed from Bhavnagar District as well as adjoining Districts, viz., Amreli, Junagadh, Surendranagar, Rajkot and Ahmedabad District (Rural), for a period of one year. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by way of appeal before the State Government. The State Government has rejected the said appeal by the order at Annexure 'B', dated 6-8-2002. Accordingly, the petitioner has challenged the said orders by way of this Special Criminal Application. 2. Before passing the impugned order of externment, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice under Section 59 of the Act. The said notice is dated 29th January, ...
Tag this Judgment!Mafatbhai P. Bhoi (Since Decd.) Through His Heirs and ors. Vs. Patel P ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)3GLR2012
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioners, in this petition, have challenged the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on 31-3-1992 in Revision Application No. TEN. B.A. 421 of 1991 confirming the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (Appeal), Kheda, who in turn had confirmed the order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal, Anand on 20th July, 1983 in Tenancy Case No. 485/6/82. The petitioners have made the prayer for quashing and setting aside of all these 3 orders.2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have made an application under Section 32PP of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Mamlatdar and A.L.T., Anand, in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 99/4, admeasuring about 1 Acre and 17 Gunthas of Village-Karamsar, Taluka-Anand, District-Kaira. The said application was registered as the Tenancy Case No. 482/C/82. The petitioners have, inter alia, contended in the said applicati...
Tag this Judgment!Haresh @ Kali Mohandas Vadhwani Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4379
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged his order of experiment passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Anjar. By the impugned order, the petitioner is extend from Kachchh District as well as from Rajkot, Banaskantha and Surendranagar for a period of two years. The said order was confirmed by the appellate authority against which this petition is filed by the petitioner.2. In the show cause notice issued to the petitioner under Section 59 of the Act dated 28.5.2000 there is a reference of nine cases, which are pending against the petitioner; some of which are under the Indian Penal Code and some of are under the Prohibition Act. In the show cause notice, some particulars are also given about the activities of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner is a headstrong person and is also keeping dangerous weapons with him and is known as 'Dada' in the area. It is also stated that, he is creating atmosphere of terror and nobody is able to give any...
Tag this Judgment!Purushottambhai Budhabhai Raval Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)4GLR151
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order of externment passed against him by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vadodara in Externment Case No.12 of 2002. By the impugned order dated 14.08.2002, at Annexure 'E' in the compilation, the petitioner is externed from Vadodara City and District for a period of one year. The appeal preferred against the said order is also dismissed by the State Government vide the order dated 23.10.2002, produced at Exhibit 'H' in the compilation. The aforesaid orders are challenged by the petitioner in this petition.2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was served with a show cause notice under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act. The said show cause notice is produced at Annexure 'A', page 13. Certain grounds are mentioned in the show cause notice, indicating the activities of the petitioner. There is also a reference about two criminal cases which are pending against the petitioner.3. So far as the allegati...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwanbhai Karamanbhai Bharvad Vs. Arogyanagar Co-op. Housing Society ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Guj294; (2004)1GLR506
Kundan Singh, J.1. Rule. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Both these petitions are filed against the judgment and order dated 30-8-2002 passed by the Fourth Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural). Navrangpura in Misc. Civil Appeals No. 95 of 2001 and 96 of 2001. As both these petitions are arising out of the same judgment and order of the trial Court, these petitions are disposed of by common judgment.2. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 513 of 1999 for declaration and permanent injunction along with the application exh. 5 for interim injunction. The defendants also filed an application exh. 51 for vacating ex parte interim order, wherein both the parties were directed to maintain status quo vide order dated 23-11-2001 by the trial Court. Initially, the ex parte order was passed by the trial Court but subsequently after hearing both the parties to the aforesaid suit, the final order of status quo was passed allowing the application exh. 5 and confirmed the ex parte...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Kathadbhai Jebalia Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: (2003)3GLR2096
A.L. Dave, J.1. These Criminal Appeals arise out of a common judgment and order rendered by learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case Nos. 236 of 1994, 72 and 297 of 1995 and 160 of 1996 on May 14, 1998, recording conviction under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('N.D.P.S. Act' for short). As the Sessions Cases arose out of the same incident and transaction, they were tried together. Likewise, as these appeals arise out of the same judgment and order, they are tagged and heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.1.1 Criminal Appeal No. 664 of 1998 is preferred by Shantilal Haridas Patel @ Katori, who was accused No. 1 before the trial Court.1.2 Criminal Appeal No. 692 of 1998 is preferred by Haji Suleman Khafi, Dinesh Alabhai Dhruv @ Diniyo, Jusab Razak Ali Sidi @ Dado, Khemraj Amrabhai Gadhvi and Gafar Suleman Khafi, who were original accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10, respectively.1.3 Cri...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Vs. Karan Fibres and Fabrics Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC68; (2003)2GLR1392
J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. The appellant-Bank, is the original-respondent, at whose instance, by this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the challenge is made against the judgment and order passed on 3rd July, 2002 by the learned single Judge [Coram : D. A. Mehta, J.], inter alia, contending that the impugned order, quashing the order dated 5th May, 1999 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad, is unjust and illegal. 2. The respondents, in this Letters Patent Appeal, are the original-petitioners and the appellant is the original-respondent Bank. The appellant Bank initiated legal battle by filing Original Application No. 110 of 1998 against the respondents before the Debt Recovery Tribunal [D.R.T.] claiming a sum of Rs. 4,07,32,789/- with costs and future interests invoking the provisions of Sections 17 and 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 [Act]. The D.R.T., by its order dated 4/5-5-1999, allowed the Original Application N...
Tag this Judgment!Harsukhlal Laxmanbhai and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: (2003)2GLR1593
R.P. Dholakia, J.1. Present revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 8-10-2001 passed by learned J.M.F.C., Mansa in Criminal Case Nos. 428 and 392 of 1995.2. The case in short is that a complaint was lodged by the respondent No. 2 against the present petitioners-original accused in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate at Mansa for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In all, total three criminal cases were registered namely, Criminal Case Nos. 43 of 1996, 428 of 1995 and 392 of 1995 being filed by the respondent No. 2 and according to petitioners, by the order of the High Court, all the three cases were ordered to be tried jointly. It is their say that the petitioners filed application Exh. 110 before the learned Magistrate at Mansa on 31-3-2001. Said matter was kept for hearing and vide order dated 8-10-2001, it was rejected by the learned Magistrate by a reasoned order which is giving rise to prefer the present revision.3. A...
Tag this Judgment!Babubhai Jensing Solanki Vs. Deputy Vansanrakshak
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: (2003)4GLR742; (2003)IIILLJ909Guj
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Since both these appeals, by invocation of provisions of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, raise identical questions and also arise out of one recruitment process and, also being interconnected, upon request, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. A short spectrum, and conspectus of the facts, giving rise to these Letters Patent Appeals needs narration at the inception, with a view to examine and appreciate the merits of appeals and challenge against that, and since even most of the factual aspects being common, they are proposed to be referred at this stage, and later on, as and when required in accordance with the discussion in this common judgment, the individual aspects will also be considered.3. The appellants, are the original petitioners, who were working as Daily Wagers, as Bit Guards as per the Government Resolution, since almost 10 years prior to the regular recruitment for the said post came to be undergone by the respondent-authority, Daily Wa...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: [2004]118CompCas265(Guj); [2004]52SCL399(Guj)
Kundan Singh, J. 1. The present petition is filed under section391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referredto as 'The Act') seeking sanction of the Scheme ofCompromise and/or arrangement between the petitioner andtwo different classes of its shareholders. Thehistorical background and objectives and need for suchscheme have been narrated in para 9 of the petition andread as under: 1.1. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited is alisted public limited company. It is engaged in thebusiness of manufacturing and export of various Agroprocessed commodities. It is engaged in themanufacturing of 100% Cotton Yarn from Cotton, Starch,Liquid Glucose, Dextrose Monohydrate Powder, MaltoDextrin Powder and other products from Maize, De-oiledCakes/Extraction and Edible Oil from various Oil Seeds,Wheat Flour and other products from Wheat and variousother commodities. It is also engaged in the activitiesof Merchant Exports and it has the major presence in theInternational market for its products. The ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »