Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-12-1995
Reported in : 1996CriLJ2744
ORDERS.D. Shah, J.1. The petitioner detenu has by this petition challenged the legality and validity of the order of detention dated 7th December, 1994, passed by the District Magistrate, Surat, Under Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985, on his being satisfied that detenu was a 'dangerous person' within the meaning of the said term as defined by Section 2(c) of the said Act and that his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and, therefore, he was required to be detained. The grounds of detention duly formulated Under Section 9(1) of the said Act of even date are supplied to the detenu.2. From the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu, it becomes clear that the detenu is resident of village Kathor. He is a very head strong person and he is communal minded. His activities have become more dangerous and horrendous after demolition of Babri Masjid in December, 1992 and he and his associates belonging to muslim community hav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-07-1995
Reported in : (1996)2GLR313
B.C. Patel, J.1. In these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the notifications, declaring certain areas as 'transitional areas' and 'smaller urban areas.'With regard to Mehmedabad Nagar Panchayat, under Section 5 notification No. KV-154 of 94-NPL-4593-3564-M, under Section 266-B(d) notification No. KV-240 of 94-NPL-4593-3564-M and under Article 243-Q, notification No. KV-73 of 94-NPL4593-3504-M are issued by the State Government which are challenged in Spl. C.A. No. 5774 of 1994.With regard to Lunawada Nagar Panchayat, under Section 5 notification No. KV-157 of 94-NPL-4593-3564-M, under Section 266-B(d) notification No. KV-243 of 94-NPL-4593-3504-M and under Article 243-4, notification No. KV-73 of 94-NPL-4593-3504-M are issued by the State Government which are challenged in Spl. C.A. No. 5775 of 1994.With regard to Kheda Nagar Panchayat, under Section 5 notification No. KV-104 of 94-NPL-4593-3564-M, under Section 266-B(d) notification No. KV-191 of 94-NPL-4593-3594-M and under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-13-1995
Reported in : (1996)2GLR418
S.D. Shah, J.1. Rule. Heard Mrs. Vidhatri K. Parekh for the applicants and Mr. Darshan M. Parikh for the respondent No. 1. For an unfortunate accident that has taken place on 17th of October, 1984, the Tribunal being M.A.C.T. (Main), Surat, has by Award dated 3rd May, 1994 fully allowed the application and awarded the amount of Rs. 2,17,000/- inclusive of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation. The Tribunal has further directed that the amount of Rs. 53,250/- each shall be invested in the name of the applicants in Fixed Deposit Receipts in a Nationalised Bank for a period of 15 years and the name of the Claimant No. 1 shall be shown as guardian of the rest of the claimants. It is an unfortunate state of affairs in the State of Gujarat that for an accident that has taken place as back as 1984, the compensation petition is heard and decided in the year 1994, i.e., exactly after a decade. To add to the agony of the claimants, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-02-1995
Reported in : 1996CriLJ994; (1995)2GLR1666
M.N. Mathur, J.1. This Misc. Civil Application (for contempt) has been filed on 16-10-1991 by the petitioners namely; (1) J. A. Goraswa and (2) R. B. Shukla against Director General and Inspector General of Police, Gujarat State and State of Gujarat.2. The say of the petitioners is that they were serving as Head Constables in the Police Force of the respondents and they had appeared for the written test and oral test for the purpose of promotion to post of Police Sub-Inspectors. They had passed the written test but failed in the oral test. Therefore, they approached this Court by way of filing Special Civil Applications which were decided by the Court (Coram: R.J. Shah, J.) by a common judgment dated 27-10-1989. This Court issued certain directions to the respondents to be carried out within a specified time. A copy of the judgment has been annexed with this Application and marked as Annexure 'A'. It is further casually stated by the petitioners that 'it seems against the aforesaid jud...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-21-1995
Reported in : (1996)131CTR(Guj)127; [1996]222ITR831(Guj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' by its order dt. 6th April, 1993, has referred the following questions of law to this Court for its decision which are said to have arisen out of the ITA No. 5230/Ahd/1991 relating to the asst. yr. 1988-89 : The questions which have been referred at the instance of the assessee in RA No. 709/Ahd/92 are : ' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,48,24,876 became taxable in the hands of the firm which according to the assessee stood dissolved through dissolution deed dt. 16th Aug., 1984 (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the case would be governed by the Supreme Court decision in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1984) 154 ITR 148 and not by the Supreme Court decision in CWT vs . Arvind Narottam : [1988]173ITR479(SC) and by the Madras High Court decision in the case ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-26-1995
Reported in : (1996)2GLR297
M.R. Calla, J.1. The petitioner is a qualified Doctor and in the year 1971, he was working as Incharge Medical Officer, Sajod Primary Health Centre. That a complaint was made against him that one Shri Natvarlal, a boy aged eight years was suffering from diarrhoea and vomitting and the said boy was taken to the Primary Health Centre, Sajod, around 10-00 to 10-30 p.m. on 30th August 1971. That the petitioner did not examine the said boy-patient and instead, asked the Sanitary Inspector to give the medicines from Epidemic Store. The petitioner did not examine the patient though the relative of the patient suspected cholera and had informed the petitioner accordingly. The condition of the said boy went on deteriorating and again around 3.00 a.m. after mid-night, the petitioner was requested to visit the said boy and to examine the patient. The petitioner refused to do so and directed the Sanitary Inspector ('S.I.' for short) Shri Jadav to visit the patient and to administer certain injecti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-27-1995
Reported in : (1995)2GLR1615
Rajesh Balia, J.1. By this petition the petitioner-Bhavnagar Municipality seeks for a writ of prohibition against the respondent No. 1 from proceeding with the application moved by the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for deciding the controversy raised before me are that the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 claiming themselves to be primary teachers of the schools run by the respondent Municipality filed an application under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act for making recovery of their salary from the petitioner. On an earlier occasion disputes of the similar type having been raised between the parties the Municipality has contested its liability to pay salary of the primary teachers employed at various schools run under its jurisdiction on the ground that the Municipality is not the employer and it is the responsibility of the Administrative Officer to make the payment. That plea having been r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-13-1995
Reported in : (1996)2GLR515
S.D. Shah, J.1. In this Civil Revision Application against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD) at Dhoraji at Exh. 185 in RCS No. 254 of 1985 insofar as it granted adjournment only on imposing condition of costs, no serious challenge is raised before this Court. To that extent the order is upheld and C.R.A. stands rejected.2. It is not necessary to hear the other side while considering the second request made to this Court. It is a matter between this Court and the serious remarks made by the learned Judge in his order against practising advocate at Dhoraji. The observations made which are stated herein in extenso are undoubtedly directed against the senior advocate and various practices allegedly adopted by the senior advocate for delaying the proceedings of every suit. The learned judge has made reference to the practice being constantly followed by the senior advocate and has passed certain strictures or adverse remarks against the conduct of the senior advocate which ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-22-1995
Reported in : AIR1995Guj133; (1995)2GLR1655
B.N. Kirpal, C.J. 1. The challenged these three matters is to the validity of the notification issued by the State of Gujarat, which had the effect of cancelling the earlier notification, under which a Wild Life Sanctuary had been established under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The aforesaid Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'The said Act') was enacted by the Parliament and it came into operation on 9th of September, 1972. The said Act was extended to the State of Gujarat on 1st of February, 1973. On 14th of April, 1981, a notification was issued by the State of Gujarat, whereby 765.79 sq. kilometers of land in Lakhpat Taluka of Kutch District was declared as a Wild Life Sanctuary under Section 18(1) of the said Act. The sanctuary is more commonly known as the 'Narayan Sarovar Sanctuary'. The declaration of the sanctuary was to be by a notification and Section 21 of the Act required the notification to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-21-1995
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!