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 : (2009)3GLR2137
ORDER2. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 9-2-2009 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Petition No. 14 of 2007 as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, suffering from the vices of mala fides, contrary to the provisions of the Defection Act as well as Rules framed thereunder and also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have also prayed for the stay against the implementation, operation and execution of the impugned order dated 9-2-2009 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Petition No. 14 of 2007 and further stay against the proceedings of Petition No. 14 of 2007.3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are elected members of Morbi Nagar Palika in the general election held in the year 2005. The Morbi Nagar Palika has 42 elected members. In the meeting held on 21-12-2005, Shri Pradipbhai H. Vala, came to be elected as the Presid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2006)2GLR995
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Mukesh Patel for petitioners-Union of India and others and Ms. Nita C. Banker for respondent original petitioner.2. In this petition, petitioners, Union of India and others have challenged order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench dated 8-10-2003 in O.A. No. 553 of 1999 with M.A. No. 506 of 1999. Original petitioner-present respondent, being aggrieved by order of the disciplinary authority imposing penalty of removal from service and non-disposal of his representations dated 27-6-1996 and 27-8-1997 by appellate authority, preferred O.A. on 4-6-1998. It was registered on 20-8-1999. Thereafter, O.A. was amended in April, 2003 to challenge order of appellate authority dated 23-8-1996 rejecting appeal of original petitioner-employee. Prayer was made for quashing order passed by disciplinary authority and appellate authority.3. Case of the employee was that he was appointed as inquiry-cum-reservation clerk and training was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1967)0GLR395; (1966)IILLJ389Guj
Mehta, J.1. This appeal raises a very interesting question as to whether a doctor's dispensary is a commercial establishment within the meaning of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. It has been filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused-doctor by the City Magistrate (Municipal), Ahmedabad, on the charge for the offence under S. 52(e) of the Act read with S. 62 and rule 23(1) of the said Act. 3. The case of the prosecution was that the accused who was a doctor having his dispensary situated near Jakaria Masjid at Ahmedabad had not maintained the employment register in the prescribed form with the necessary particulars regarding the hours of work in respect of three employees working in the dispensary. The complainant, shops inspector, had visited this dispensary on 13 June, 1963 at about 9-50 a.m. and had found that even though the dispensary was registered as a commercial establishment under the Act, the employment registe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1977]107ITR172(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The assessment year under reference is 1968-69, the corresponding previous year being the calendar year 1967. The assessee is a public limited company having a textile mill at Ahmedabad. It debited cloth kharajat account in its trading books with an amount of Rs.18,247 with a view to make provision for payment to the Textile Commissioner for non-fulfilment of export obligations undertaken for the use of 'sanforized' trade mark. The Income-tax Officer held that the said payment was by way of penalty and, therefore, could not be considered as incidental to carrying on of the business. He, therefore, disallowed the said expenditure by his assessment order of February 25, 1970. There were other claims and contention advanced on behalf of the assessee before the Income-tax Officer with which we are not concerned in this reference. The assessee being dissatisfied with the order of the Income-tax Officer carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)1GLR125
A. R. Dave, J.1. Being aggrieved by an order dated 6-4-1999 passed belowthe Notice of Motion in Civil Suit No. 854 of 1999, the appellant-original defendant No. 1 has approached this Court by way of this appeal from order. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the litigation have been referred to as they have been arrayed before the trial Court. The appellant, defendant No. 1, has been aggrieved by the impugned order because, by virtue of the impugned order, during pendency of the suit, defendant No. 1 has been restrained from using mark 'VICAS' or any other mark, which is likely to infringe trade mark 'VICKS' which is being used by the plaintiffs. Moreover, defendant No. 1 has also been restrained from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale, medicinal preparation and allied products using trade mark 'VICAS' or any other trade mark which might be deceptively similar to trade mark 'VICKS' of the plaintiffs.2, The facts giving rise to the litigation, as stated by the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1970]76ITR14(Guj)
Bhagwati, C.J.1. This reference raises a question relating to the applicability of section 5 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, in relation to the settlement made by on Essoofalli Ebrahimji. The settlement was made on 15th July, 1938, and the subject-matter of the settlement consisted of several freehold and leasehold immovable properties. The settlor had a wife by the name of Safiabai and two sons, namely, Mohmedbhai and Salabhai. The settlor appointed Bai Safiabai, Mohmedbhi and himself as the trustees of the settlement and settled the immovable properties described in the Schedule on certain trust, which, so far as material for the purpose of the present reference, were as follows : '6. After my death, whatever income may be realised shall be used and appropriated as follows by the trustees hereby appointed or any of the surviving trustees : The net income of the said trust estate, after paying the interest on debt due by me, shall be divided at the end of every year into three (equal) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)2GLR1550
B.J. Shethna, J.1. This appeal is directed against impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28-5-1998 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Addl. Sessions Judge, Kheda, Nadiad in Sessions Case No. 235 of 1997 whereby the learned Judge convicted the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further undergo S.I. for one month.Case of the Prosecution in brief :-On 9-6-1997 the First Informant lodged a First Information Report at Virsad Police Station inter alia stating that on 8-6-1997 at about 9-30 in the night the deceased who was serving as a driver at the place of the first informant and the brother of the first informant by name Pradeep had gone to village Virsad for the purpose of filling up diesel in the tractor at a Petrol Pump near Dharmaj Chokdi. The tractor was thereafter taken at the place of one Raman Panchal for the purpose of welding a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1976Guj8; (1975)GLR764
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. The question which confronts the Court is whether a Pleader enrolled under the Bombay Pleader Act of 1920, hereafter called the 'Pleaders Act', who has been removed from practice can be reinstated under the general powers of superintendence exercisable by the High Court subsequent to the enforcement of the Advocates Act of 1961.2. A few facts require to be mentioned in order to understand the Point at issue. The Petitioner, Pragjibhai Kesurbhai Patel, was practicing as a Pleader at Sinor in the Baroda District. It appears that one Mavjibhai Govindbhai a client of petitioner Pragjibhai made an application to the learned District Judge of Baroda under Section 26 of the Pleaders Act, Insurance of the report submitted by the learned District Judge the matter came up before a Division Bench of this High Court by way of Misc. Civil Appln No.293 of 1965. By an order D/- 8-3-1966 the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct and that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1971Guj188
Mehta, J.1. This appeal arises out of the suit for declaration filed by the respondent plaintiff against the appellant defendant that the defendant is not the adopted son of deceased Maharaj Purshottamlalji Raghnathji of Junagadh. The suit was filed in the court of the Civil Judge. (S.D.) at Junagadh, where it was registered as long Civil Suit No. 115 of 1958. The learned trial Judge has decreed the suit and, therefore, the original defendant, who claims that he is adopted son to the deceased Maharaj Purshottamlalji Raghunathji, has preferred this appeal.2. Short facts of the case are as under. The parties to this suit are the descendants of Shri Vallabhacharya Maharaj, the original founder of Suddh Adwit Pushti Marg. He flourished in Vikram Samvat 1535 which is equivalent to 1479 A.D. The family of the parties is called Vallabhkul. It is an admitted position that the descendants of Shri Vallabhacharya Maharai are working as Acharyas of various temples and Shrines in Gujarat and other ...
Tag this Judgment!