Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-22-1991
Reported in : (1992)1GLR422
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. The Dwarka Cement Works, a limited company and five others who are its Chairman, Directors and General Manager respectively, have by this Misc. Criminal Application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, moved this Court for quashing and setting aside the impugned order issuing process against them in Criminal Case No. 162 of 1989, by the learned J.M.F.C., Dwarka, for their alleged offences under Sections 21(4), 21(5), 31 A, 39 and 40 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (for short 'the Pollution Act').2. In short, on 23-2-1989, the respondent No. 2, viz., Gujarat Pollution Board, Rajkot, through its duly authorised officer, one Mr. A.N. Shah, Dy. Environmental Engineer, filed a complaint before the learned J.M.F.C., Dwarka, alleging that the petitioner No. 1-Dwarka Cement Works Ltd. Company had committed offences under Sections 21(4), 21(5) and 31A of the Pollution Act and that at the relevant time, the petitioner No. 2-Jati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-20-1991
Reported in : 1992ACJ792; (1991)1GLR650
R.D. Dave, J. 1. A commuter gets down at Rajkot Railway Station. He paces towards his office through Kothi Compound. Though a 'Fine Weather Day' a tree suddenly falls upon and kills him. The heirs of the victim sue the Rajkot Municipal Corporation for damages and that too successfully. We understand, the amount has been paid. The Rajkot Municipal Corporation appeals. The question posed is-Could the Corporation have been held liable in damages for the negligence? The ultimate answer would depend upon a few offshoots-Was there a duty to take care? Was that duty breached by the Corporation? Was there a 'reasonable foreseeability'? Could the 'risk' have been 'foreseeable' by the Corporation by resorting to a reasonable standard of care? Let us examine:2. One Jayantilal Nakum, a resident of village Padadhari, used to work at Rajkot as a clerk in the office of Director of Industries situated in the Collector's office compound. The deceased used to commute between Padadhari and Rajkot by trai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-05-1991
Reported in : (1991)2GLR1035
C.K. Thakker, J.1. A substantial question of general public importance having far-reaching effect has been raised in the present group of petitions. In view of the challenge to the constitutional validity of certain statutory rules, some petitions were placed for admission as well as for final hearing before the Division Bench. In view of the fact that a similar question was pending before the Division Bench, the learned single Judge has also referred some petitions to the Division Bench and that is how all these matters are before us for final hearing.Facts:2. For the purpose of appreciating the controversy in question, it may be necessary to state facts in the first petition briefly. In Special Civil Application No. 1816 of 1989, it is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Range Forest Officer Class III on November 2, 1974 and was promoted to the post of Assistant Conservation of Forests, Class II which is a gazetted post. A charge-sheet dated August 21, 1984 was served...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-24-1991
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
Decided on : Jun-25-1991
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
Decided on : May-02-1991
Reported in : AIR1992Guj10; (1992)1GLR223
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. These four petitions raise common questions of facts and law and are being dealt with and disposed of together at the instance of the learned counsel of the parties.2. The petitioners, in all these matters, have sought to challenge the action of the Lokayukta in summoning them to remain present as witnesses along with documents mentioned in the summons on the ground that they cannot be so summoned without being disclosed the identity of the complainant, the public functionaries involved and the nature of allegations made against such public functionaries. The petitioners have also challenged the legislative competence of the State Legislature in enacting 'The Gujarat Likayukta Act, 1986' as also the provisions of Sections 11 read with Sections 2(2), 15, 16 and 18 of the said Act as ultra vires the Constitution. It is also contended that, if the provisions of Section 10(2) of the said Act are so construed as to bar the disclosure of the identity of the complainan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-12-1991
Reported in : 1992(61)ELT447(Guj); (1991)2GLR1081
Shah, J.1. In these petitions the vires of sub-sections (4) & (5) of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is challenged on the ground that it is ultra vires Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India. 2. Section 11B reads as under :- '11B. Claim for refund of duty. - (1) Any person claiming refund of any duty of excise may make an application for refund of such duty to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise before the expiry of six months from the relevant date : Provided that the limitation of six months shall not apply where any duty has been paid under protest. (2) If on receipt of any such application, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise is satisfied that the whole or any part of the duty of excise paid by the applicant should be refunded to him, he may make an order accordingly. (3) Where as a result of any order passed in appeal or revision under this Act refund of any duty of excise becomes due to any person, the Assistant Collector of Central E...
Tag this Judgment!