Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-29-1996
Reported in : (1996)3GLR823
S.M. Soni, J.1. Petitioner-detenu, being branded as a bootlegger as defined in Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 ('PASA Act' for short), has challenged the order of detention dated 7-8-1995 passed by the respondent No. 1 in exercise of power under Section 3(2) of PASA Act with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, as his activities are likely to or deem to affect adversely the public health. On the order being served, petitioner was also served with the grounds of detention with necessary documents relied on by the authority to record subjective satisfaction.2. To brand the petitioner as a bootlegger, the authority has relied on as many as six cases registered under the Bombay Prohibition Act, of which three are pending in Court and three are pending investigation. He was also supplied with necessary documents referred in the grounds, which according to the authority, were reli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-04-1996
Reported in : (1997)1GLR198
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. The enigmatic problem which incidentally we have been called upon to resolve in these two appeals, one of which is for the enhancement of the sentence is a question-'Whether and when in the midst of an intense rampant, unabated, psychic pollution challengingly, spreading like the forest fire all around in the society and in particular engulfing and victimizing the unguarded young generation of slippery age making them prone to commit crimes because of the mesmerizing uncontrolled obscene films exhibiting sex and crime day in and day out beamed through the channels on the TV and the Government as if unconcerned with this doing nothing about it, can the unwary victim of such psychic pollution inflicted disease be punished and if at all punished savagely for the alleged offence of rape for 7 years? Over and above and apart parents, has indeed the Government no public duty rather accountability to its citizens to take care of their psychic health by controlling and preven...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-26-1996
Reported in : AIR1997Guj83; (1997)1GLR362
ORDERS.D. Shah, J.1. Is human blood a 'drug'? AND Are Pathologists tapping blood from human beings manufacturing 'drug' so as to incur liability to obtain licence under Section 18(c) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940?are the questions posed for consideration of this court in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by some of the Pathologists and Association of Pathologists.2. The respondents, namely, the Director of Food and Drugs has by notices, dated 8th July, 1983 called upon the petitioners individually to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them for breach of Section 18(c) of the said Act inasmuch as they have been carrying on the activities of tapping blood, collecting the blood and of selling the blood for which licence is required'under Section 18(c) of the said Act and since such activity was being carried on by them without obtaining licence, actions were required to be taken against them. The issuance of such notice to various pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-26-1996
Reported in : (1998)1GLR260
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. In this matter, office has raised the objection that there is a delay of 18 days in filing an acquittal appeal by the State. We have carefully perused the delay condonation application and the grounds mentioned therein causing the said delay. From this, we are indeed quite satisfied that 'sufficient cause' is made out for condoning the delay in question.2. That takes us to yet one another important question, viz., whether before condoning the delay, it is always necessary to issue notice to the other side? Now, in this regard in view of the decision rendered in the case of Stale of Gujarat v. Ramesh Laxman Chauhan reported in 1994(2) GLR 1577 and thereafter yel another decision of this Court (Coram: K.J. Vaidya & M.H. Kadn. JJ.) rendered in Misc. Criminal Application No. 637 of 1996 in Criminal Appeal So. 605 of 1995. decided on 23-2-1996, which stands duly fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Naik Mahabir Singh v. Chief of Army Staff, repo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-17-1996
Reported in : (1996)1GLR771
S.D. Shah, J.1. Admit. Mr. R.N. Shah appears for opponents and waives service of admission. Printing is dispensed with. With the consent of learned Advocates appearing for the parties matter is finally heard and disposed of by this judgment.2. This Second Appeal is preferred by original defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Asst. Judge, Navsari, dated 30-9-1995 in Reg. Civil Appeal No. 140 of 1986 whereby he allowed the appeal of the appellant-defendants and quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in favour of respondent-plaintiffs and remanded the matter to the trial Court with direction to raise proper and legal issues after considering the pleadings and submissions of the rival parties. The learned Asst. Judge also directed the trial Court Judge to afford sufficient opportunity to lead oral as well as documentary evidence to the parties of the suit in support of their allegations and also directed that the parties were at...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-01-1996
Reported in : (1997)2GLR1689
S.D. Shah, J.1. Rule. Mr. M.A. Kharadi waives service of Rule on behalf of respective respondents. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, the matter is finally heard today.2. The respondent-plaintiff in each Civil Revision Application has after instituting Civil Suit No. 11 of 1996 and 10 of 1996 respectively in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Gondal, tendered an application at Exh. 5 under Section 94 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was the case of the plaintiff in the plaint that they are the consumer of electricity under Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and that electricity meters installed at their premises by the petitioner-Gujarat Electricity Board were defective and therefore, they had made complaint in writing that such meters were defective. It is thereafter that the officers of the Gujarat Electricity Board came to the premises of each plaintiff with new meter to be installed ...
Tag this Judgment!