Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1967Guj214; (1967)0GLR281
Bhagwati, J.(1) This appeal arises out of an application made by the applicant as the universal legatee of the estate of one Bechar Dunger alias Maharaj Balakdaji (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) for obtaining letter of administration with a copy of the will annexed. The deceased was originally a resident of Khoda and was carrying on worship of his Thakorji at that place. In Samvat Year 1979 he purchased land bearing Plot No. 98 admeasuring 2,000 square yards at Jorawarnager and built a temple on the said land and installed the images of his Thakorji in the said temple. He thereafter shifted to Jorawarnagar and performed the worship of Tahkorji and managed and looked after the temple. One Sadhu named Maharaj Srik Karsandasji gave him a 'Kanthi' and initiated him in the order of sadhu and since then he came to known as Maharaj Shri Balakdasji, he dedicated the land and the temple standing on it to Thakorji and carried on management of the temple and performed worship of Thakorj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1979)2GLR420
A.N. Surati, J.1. The respondents by the impugned notice dated April, 30, 1976 called upon the petitioner Company to pay to them a sum of Rs. 87, 235/- on account of arrears of land revenue as per details given in the notice Annexure 'A' within a period of fifteen days from the date of the service of the said notice to the petitioner Company, otherwise the respondents threatened compulsory proceedings against the petitioner Company for the recovery of the same. The petitioners were aggrieved by the said impugned notice and have filed the present petition in this Court.2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner Company, a few relevant facts may be stated.3. The petitioner Company is registered under the Indian Companies Act and is engaged in the business of manufacturing carbon papers, typewriter ribbons, stamp-pads, etc. and has got its factory in Goa. The petitioner Company is having its branch office in Ahmedabad.4. On May 28, 1973, the petitioner received a tender Inq...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)1GLR796
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Pramod Bhagwan Nayak, petitioner original detenu, has filed this habeas corpus petition challenging the order dated 23-8-2005 passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat City, Surat, respondent No. 2 herein. The petition was filed before this Court on 13-10-2005. When the matter was placed for hearing on 21-10-2005, this Court has issued rule. On behalf of the respondents Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned A.G.P., appears. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal.2. Mr. Amrish Pandya, learned Advocate, appears on behalf of Ms. Krishna U. Mishra, learned Advocate for the petitioner. He has invited my attention to the order of detention dated 23-8-2005 in which the authority has passed order under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.A.S.A. Act'). He has also invited my attention to the order of committal dated 23-10-2005 whereby the petitioner has been sent to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1981)20CTR(Guj)90; [1981]127ITR65(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following three questions of law for our opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was the justified in holding that Steel-O-Style Unit of the assessee and the units (a) carrying on business of purchase and sale of cloth, (b) processing and manufacturing of colours and chemicals in the name of M/s. Ban Dyes, did not constitute the same business and hence the retrenchment compensation of Rs. 9,603 paid to the workers of Steel-O-Style unit after its closure was not an allowable deduction (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the activities of steel rolling mill and machinery manufacturing units which were closed in 1961 and 1962, respectively, did not constitute the same business as purchase and sale of cloth and manufacturing of chemicals and dyes and that the appellant was not entitled to deduction of bad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2004)2GLR1211
C. K. Buch, J.1. The petitioner of Special Criminal Application No. 1229 of 2003 is the original accused of Criminal Case No. 3616 of 2000 tried and convicted by the learned J.M.F.C., 4th Court, Vadodara for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the N. I. Act') and the petitioner of other petition i.e. Special Criminal Application No. 209 of 2004 is the original complainant of said criminal case.2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, both these petitioners are referred to as accused and complainant respectively.3. The accused Salvinder Kaur Hardipsingh Lubana has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for the following main reliefs mentioned in Para 12 of the memo of the petition :-'(b) Your Lordships may be pleased to suspend the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadodara in Criminal Case No. 3616 of 2000 dated 4-10-2002 and the same orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2001Guj115
D.P. Buch, J.1. This is a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order recorded by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad on 31st August, 1999. below application Exh. 153 submitted by the present respondents directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 14,630/- towards the stamp duty and penalty on the document produced at Mark 142/1 and further directing that the said document shall not be exhibited for want of its registration under the provisions of Indian Registration Act.2. It appears that the aforesaid document which is placed on the record of this Court at Annexure 'A' is a deed of assignment. The trial court found that the document has been duly proved but the trial court also found that since the document required compulsory registration and since it has not been registered, the said document cannot be exhibited, therefore, the aforesaid order came to be passed by the learned Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1995)1GLR624
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The order passed by and on behalf of the respondent on 22nd June 1987 under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('the Ceiling Act' for brief) is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thereby the respondent revised the order passed by the Competent Authority at Ahmedabad on 8th March 1983 and declared the holding of petitioner No. 6 to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 1478 sq. mts.2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. Petitioners Nos. 1, 6 and 7 are brothers (the brothers for convenience). Petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 are sons of petitioner No. 1 and petitioners Nos. 8 and 9 are sons of petitioner No. 7. The three brothers appear to have purchased one consolidated parcel of land bearing Survey No. 337/1+2+3 in all admeasuring 10622 sq. mts. situated at Bodakdev within the Urban Agglomeration of Ahmedabad (the disputed land for convenience) on 28th January 1972 under a d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1990)1GLR673
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of the same judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Nadiad in Special Civil Suit No. 80 of 1973. The plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs. 53,000/- on the allegation that the defendant-Gujarat Electricity Board had committed breach of the contract inasmuch as 'the Board' disconnected the supply of electricity wrongfully and consequently the plaintiff suffered loss to the extent of Rs. 53,000/-. The defendant-Board resisted the suit on facts as well as on law points and also filed counter claim of Rs. 6,363.38 ps. After recording the evidence and after hearing the parties, the trial Court ordered to dismiss the counter claim filed by the defendant-Board. But it partially decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and ordered the defendant-Board to pay Rs. 6,625/- as damages to plaintiff No. 1 with cost of the suit and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum till realisation.2. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1963Guj226; 1963CriLJ265; (1963)0GLR1073
Raju, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of respondent Abdul Sattar Haji Ibrahim by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Godhra in Criminal Case No. 1807 under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act.2. The charge against the respondent was that having entered into India at Ahmedabad on 13-10-57 under the authority of Pakistani Pass-port bearing No. 351544 dated 11-8-55 and 'C' Visa bearing No. 22144 dated 5-10-1957 and having obtained Residential Permit No. 322/57 from the Registration Officer, Ahmedabad which permitted him to stay in India upto 12-12-1957, he failed to leave India. It was also mentioned in the charge that the period of stay in India had been extended upto 12-1-1958 by the District Magistrate, Panchmahals and further extended upto 12-4-1958 by the Secretary to the Government of Bombay.3. In his examinatipn at the trial, the respondent stated that he had committed no offence as he is a national of India and therefore, not bound to leave India. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1955CriLJ1208
Chhatpar, J.1. This appeal is from an order of conviction of the appellant of an offence Under Section 409, Indian Penal Code, and sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 400/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment of three months. The offence was alleged to have been committed by the accused in respect of a sum of Rs. 397-8-0 received and misappropriated by him. The accused was a junior clerk in the office of the Chief Minister from February 1949 to December 1950.The staff of the office of the Chief Minister in April 1949 comprised a Personal Secretary who then was R. C. Raval, two stenographers named Bhadrakant Dholakia and K. G. Oza and a junior clerk, the accused. The duties of the accused then were to receive and despatch post, to present bills in the office of the Comptroller, to receive cheques for payments, to receive payments and cheques from the Bank and to disburse the amounts so received.It was also his duty to receive money orders and to maintain...
Tag this Judgment!