Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1978)19GLR159
A.N. Surti, J.1. The short question which arises for my consideration in the present criminal revision application is whether the learned Magistrate was justified in dropping the proceedings before him and in releasing the accused persons in respect of the complaint filed against the accused persons in regard to certain offences alleged to have taken place before the Mamlatdar and the Insolvency Court having regard to Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.2. In order to appreciate the point canvassed by Mr. Suresh M. Shah the learned advocate for the petitioner-original complainant, a few relevant facts may be stated.3. The petitioner-complainant had purchased Hundis of Rs. 22,000/- in May, 1966 from one Haji Amad Mamad Dada Habib Jiya at Dhoraji. The said firm went into insolvency, and in the insolvency proceedings, the creditors of the firm were given rateable distribution by the Receiver. The petitioner was ordered to be paid Rs. 9900/- in respect of his aforesaid clai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1995Guj22
ORDERC.V. Jani, J.1. This Revision Application filed by the original plaintiffs under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Surat below defendants' application Exh. 59 for impleading 31 specified persons as plaintiffs and also consequential orders passed by him below application Exh. 61 filed by the defendants and rejecting the plaintiffs' application Exh. 65 for review of the said orders.2. The applicants have filed Special Civil Suit No. 586 of 1987 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Surat for specific performance of the agreement for sale of the suit property dated 1-3-86 executed by the opponents-defendants. One of the averments made in the plaint was that 34 plots had already been booked and possession thereof had been delivered to different persons.3. In this suit, the opponents-defendants submitted an application Exh. 59 for joining 31 specified persons as co-plaintiffs on the ground that these 31 pers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1975)16GLR1039
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. A question of fundamental importance (and of principle) which is likely to have great impact on the lives and careers of newly graduated doctors prosecuting their studies for post-graduate courses is raised in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is raised by petitioner No. 1 (along with 3 other petitioners) who secured 64.80% marks in the speciality of medicine as against 53% secured by respondent No. 7 at the final M.B.B.S. Examination upon the latter (and others who secured less marks than him) being preferred to him for appointment as Registrar in Medicine at the L.G. Hospital, Ahmedabad, a teaching hospital run by the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad. They have challenged the appointments made in disregard of their claim to the said post by virtue of much higher marks and better merits than the appointees as being unprincipled, arbitrary, capricious and violative of ArticleS 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India.2. Respondent No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : II(1991)ACC342
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmens' Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter 'Act' for short), the appellant has assailed the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation ('Commissioner' for short, hereinafter), at Bhavnagar 10.8.1982, in an application for compensation being workman compensation Application No. 10 of 1982.2. Various interesting points are raised and a multi prolonged attack is also made against the claim of compensation. Therefore, the appeal was heard at a marathon length. Since various significant points are raised and with a view to appreciate the merits of the present appeal and challenge against it, it would be pertinent at this juncture to set out relevant and material facts.3. The present appellant is the original claimant who preferred an application for compensation for personal injuries sustained by him, under Section 3 of the Act. The claimant made the application for compensation of Rs. 3528/- under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1996)2GLR442
S.M. Soni, J.1. Rule. Mr. Champaneri waives service on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The petitioner has filed an Election Petition No. 1 of 1993 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Jamnagar challenging the election of Sarpanch of Gagva Gram Panchayat held on 27-12-1992. An application for interim relief praying for maintenance of status quo was also filed and it was ordered to maintain status quo on that application. However, said application is pending for final hearing.2. Pending final hearing of that application for interim relief, the petitioner applied for an order of discovery under Order 11 Rules 12, 13 and 14 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Code for short). Said application was filed to procure certain additional evidence to substantiate his application for interim relief. The learned Judge after hearing the parties, was pleased to dismiss the said application on the ground that procedure under the Code is not applicable to such cases.3. The petitioner being ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)170CTR(Guj)122
D.A. Mehta, J.The applicant- assessee sought reference comprising six questions under sections 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench B, has raised and referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court.'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that expenditure in Rs. 2,05,509 incurred on office building was in the nature of capital expenditure and hence the same was not deductible as revenue expenditure?'(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that expenditure of Rs. 29,392 incurred on borewell was in the nature of capital expenditure and hence the same was not deductible as revenue expenditure?'2. The assessment year is 1982-83 and the relevant accounting period is calendar year 1981. The assessee-company is a private limited company, carrying on busines...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : I(2000)ACC37; 1999ACJ956; AIR1999Guj280; [2001]104CompCas237(Guj); (1999)2GLR214
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. This appeal raises an important question as to whether death caused by a dog bite can be said to be death caused by an accident so as to make the Life Insurance Corporation liable to pay an additional sum equal to the sum assured under the accident benefit clause of the policy. 2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated January 12, 1998, of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patan, in Special Civil Suit No. 179 of 1994 to the extent that it disallows the additional payment under the accident benefit clause to the appellant - original plaintiff, who filed the suit to recover the dues under the two policies which were taken out to insure the life of his son Vikram for Rs. 50,000 each on February 1, 1989, and March 28, 1989. These policies contained an accident benefit clause, which entailed payment of an additional sum equal to the sum assured under the policy, if the death was caused as a result of an accident as contemplated by that cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1978Guj13; (1977)GLR424
1. The plaintiffs appellants filed Civil Suit No. 2736 of 1975 in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad on Sept. 10, 1975 claiming a permanent injunction against the defendants respondents restraining them from exhibiting the cinematographic picture named 'Jai Santoshl Maa'. Defendant-respondent No. 1 is a name and style of business carried on by defendant-respondent No. 2, who had produced the said movie. Defendant-respondent No. 3 is the Director of the movie and defendant respondent No. 4 had written the Them thereof Defendant-respondent No. 5 is the distributor and defendants-respondents Nos. 6 to 14 are the theatres wherein the aforesaid movie was exhibited in the City of Ahmedabad After filing of the suit the plaintiffs to* out a notice of motion for a temporary injunction restraining the exhibition of the movie by the defendants. On notice being given to the defendants, they appeared and showed cause. After hearing both the parties the learned City Civil Judge discharged the rule on t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1991]192ITR633(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J.1. Messrs. Chinubhai Manibhai and Shrenik Kasturbhai entered into an agreement dated December 28, 1961, with Messrs. Machinefabriek Reineveld, a company incorporated in Holland with limited liability ('foreign company' for short), under which the foreign company agreed to place at the disposal of the limited liability company, which Messrs. Chinubhai Manibhai and Shrenik Kasturbhai intended to incorporate in India all the present and future know-how, the use of patents and all technical details with complete workshop drawings for manufacture of their engineering products, on the terms and conditions set out in the agreement. Such technical collaboration was for a period of ten years from the date of incorporation of the said limited liability company or from the date effective steps were taken in execution of the agreement, whichever was later. It was provided in the agreement that, notwithstanding the expiry of the agreement, after the stipulated period of ten years, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1990Guj34; (1989)2GLR812
Gokulakrishnan, C. J.1. This special civil application is to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the State Government to cancel S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act Notification dt. Keith March 1983 and also to quash S. 6 of the said Land Acquisition Act Notification and also for directing the State Government not to proceed further with the impugned notifications or take any other action in that a air. There is an alternative prayer for issuing a writ or direction directing respondent No. 1 to refer the matter to the District Court, Surat under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for deciding the proportion of the compensation payable to the petitioners. The short facts of this case are that s. 4(1) Notification was issued in respect of the land, in question in this special civil application and other lands on 16-3-1983. Before the issuance of the said Notification the petitioner No. 1 herein entered into a Banakhat with Shri Kalidas Gopalbhai Patel, who is the original own...
Tag this Judgment!