Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2000CriLJ3433
ORDERA.L. Dave, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court with this petition under article 226 of the Constitution claiming protection under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution apprehending passing of orders of detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 ('PASA Act' for short).2. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-'29. On the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, the petitioner prays to Your Lordships that-(A) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus of in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and restrain the respondents Nos.1 and 2 for exercising any powers under sub-section (2) of sec. 3 of the Act and ordering the preventive detention of the petitioner.(B) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash and set aside the order passed by the respondent No.2 issued in purported exercise of powers under su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2000)2GLR26
R.K.Abichandani,J.1. The petitioner Gram Panchayat has, in this petition, challenged the Resolution of the State of Gujarat, dated 9.9.1996 at Annexure 'N' to the petition, and the consequential order made by the respondent No.4 Collector on 31.12.1996 at Annexure 'P' to the petition, by which the respondent No.7, which is a religious institution, was granted land admeasuring 9,332 sq.meters from survey No.110 part of village Kosamba in Valsad District, by regularising the encroachment on the land in question. The challenge against these orders is made on the ground that they are issued in violation of the provisions of Sections 37, 38, 61 and 62 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and Rule 42 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972, and that they also violate the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests on 19th February, 1991, as amended on 9.7.1997 as well as the Coastal Zone Management Plan of Gujarat, framed under Section 3(2)(v) of the Env...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1983CriLJ1124; (1983)2GLR945
ORDERD.H. Shukla, J.1. The petitioner No. 1. Soni Natverlal Prabhudas, is an elder brother of petitioner No. 2 Soni Jinabhai alias Hasmukhlal Prabhu-das, who has been added as petitioner No. 2 during I he pendency of this application, vide order dated 22-3-1982. The petitioner No. 2 had purchased, allegedly in good faith, a golden chain weighing 1 Tola and 10 annas for Rs 2840/- (rupees two thousand eight hundred forty only at his aforesaid shop at Viramgam in the afternoon on 22-2-1982 from a person who introduced himself to be belonging to village Panar, Taluka Viramgam, which is at a distance of about 10 Kms. from Viramgam. The petitioner No. 2 had no reason whatever to suspect the said property to be a stolen one at the time of the aforesaid purchase. It is alleged that petitioner No. 2 paid a reasonable market price for the said property as stated above.2. to 4. * * * * * 5. This application was presented by the petitioner No. 1 on 19-3-1982 while the petitioner No. 2 was in Polic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1976)17GLR941
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This Civil Application raises an interesting question which I had no occasion to decide at any time perior to this.2. The facts leading rise to this civil application are as follows: the opponent moved the court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for filing an arbitration agreement. It was numbered as Special Civil Suit No. 25 of 1968, in the Court the Civil Judge, Senior Division Jamnagar. Mr. D.A. Chhaya, learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jamnagar, passed on Ex. 199 an order in the said suit, appointing Mr. N.J. Mankad, as the sole arbitrator in place of salt Commissioner of India, Jaipur. Civil Revision Application No. 460 of 1973 was filed in this court by Mrs. Tarabai Lalji, who moved the Court for filing an arbitration agreement, to set aside that order. In that revision application, the order appointing Mr. N.M. Miabhoy as an arbitrator in place of Mr. N.J. Mankad came to be passed on the basis of the consent terms. Material term No. 2 which is r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1977)18GLR118
B.K. Mehta, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order of Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, passed in Old jurisdiction Civil Suit No. 153 of 1946 rejecting Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 342 of 1972 filed by the petitioner-original plaintiff, praying that the said suit be taken on file and a final decree be passed therein after re-adjusting the claims of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 herein in view of the death of respondents Nos. 1 and 3 herein. The order in question has been made in the following circumstances:2. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 are brothers. Respondent No. 1 and respondent No 3 are, respectively, father and mother of the petitioner and respondent No 2. The petitioner had filed a suit for partition of the joint family properties being Civil Suit No. 143 of 1946 against the respondents herein on 17th October, 1946 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) at Ahmedabad. In the said suit, the petitioner claimed his 1/4th share in the joint fam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1978)19GLR751
J.B. Mehta, Ag. C.J.1. The petitioners, members of the teaching and non-teaching staff of Sharda Vidyalaya, Bhat village Daskroi Taluka, Ahmedabad District, which is a private registered Secondary School, have filed this contempt petition against the Manager of the school, joined as Respondents Nos. I and 2, Chandubhai P. Amin, who is also the Managing Trustee of the trust in question and against the District Education Officer, who is joined as Respondent No. 3.2. The case of the petitioners is that they had not been paid their salary and that is why they had approached, by an application under the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972 to the Education Tribunal. The Tribunal has disposed of this matter by the final order dated October 15, 1976. The Managing Trustee, Chandubhai P Amin, appeared in that matter. His plea was that he had not received the grant from the Government. He assured the Tribunal to take adequate steps to pay the arrears of salary of all these persons. The Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1976)17GLR172
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned judge of the city civil court, 5th court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No. 1266 of 1965. The suit has been dismissed on a preliminary ground, that the suit is barred by limitation in view of the provisions of Section 161(1) of the Bombay police Act, 1951 (which will be hereinafter referred to the Act).2. Plaintiff-appellant Fatehsinh Madhusinh Rathod was, at the relevant time, working as a police sub-inspector and was made a member of the prohibition and gambling squad consisting of himself, three head constables and nine constables. The task of the said special squad was to detect and investigate prohibition and gambling offences committed within the city of Ahmedabad. According to the instructions issued by the Commissioner of Police by notice dated 26-5- 1960, the charge-sheets in respect of offences detected and investigated by the special squad had to be prepared and submitted by the respect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1997)3GLR279
H.R. Shelat, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31st December 1996, passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad, allowing respondent's (judgment creditor) application (Exh.53) and issuing possession warrant directing the appellant-third party to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of two rooms and open chowk land on the ground floor and whole of the first floor of the building called 'Vijay Villa' situated to the East of Maninagar Railway Crossing and near the Vandana Park Society, in Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as `the suit premises') owned by deceased-Dr. Patrick Motilal Kelly-the judgment debtor to the Court Commissioner; and rejecting the obstruction application (Exh.49) preferred by the appellant in Execution Petition No. 495 of 1994, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Rule 103 Order 21 r/w. Sec. 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. The chequered history may be stated so as to appreciate the rival contentions.2. Dr. Patrick Motilal K...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1992)2GLR1146
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The present appeal is filed by the appellants Rajput Anil Ramsinh and Rajput Jeetendra Ramsinh who are convicted and sentenced by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajkot, in Original Sessions Case No. 31 of 1985 as under:The accused Nos. 1 and 2 are convicted for the offence under Section 302 and also under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. for causing death of Nanji Puja. Similarly, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are also convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of I.P. for causing death of Himanshu Vyas. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 are also convicted for the offences under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. for causing injuries to Dhiru Nanji. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 are also convicted for the similar offences for causing injuries to Bhanuben Dhirubhai, Amarshi Mavji, laduben Amarshi and Kamlesh Sonpal. They are also convicted for the offence under Section 342 of I.P.C. for wrongful confinement of Dhiru Nanji. They ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1993)2GLR1728
M.S. Parikh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 11th August, 1989 passed in Sessions Case No. 227 of 1988 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District Kheda at Nadiad. The appellant-accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 200/- in default rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 100/-, 15 days' rigorous imprisonment in default, for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C.2. Briefly according to the prosecution case Shahida and accused Safi Mahmad Ibrahim had more than 15 years of married life and had a son of about 10 years. It is alleged that the accused who was previously serving with Vallabh Glass Factory at Vidyanagar, was relieved from his job about 2 to 3 years before ...
Tag this Judgment!