Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1997)2GLR1224
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. This appeal by the State of Gujarat is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 29-5-1995, rendered in Summary Case No. 11 of 1987, by the learned Special Judge, Rajkot, wherein on the respondent Patel Karsanbhai Madhabhai, Proprietor of K.M. Oil Industries, Gondal, coming to be tried for the alleged contravention of Clause 26(vi) of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981, which is an offence punishable under Sees. 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, was at the end of the trial ordered to be acquitted.2. When this matter came up for admission on 27-3-1996, at the very outset taking serious note of quite an unjustifiable protracted trial this Court was constrained to pass the following order:It appears that the alleged offence took place on 6-2-1984 and surprisingly the complaint came to be filed on 16-4-1987 !! and thereafter also the matter ultimately came to be decided by the Special Court on 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1996)3GLR620
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. The three most important questions in focus arising for our consideration in this Acquittal Appeal are: (i) Whether in a Corruption Case, warranting proof of three principal ingredients of offence of bribe, viz., Demand, Offer and Acceptance, and in that case even if the direct evidence consisting of the complainant and first panch witness (directed to hear and see the bribe transaction) turn hostile to the prosecution then even merely relying upon the circumstantial evidence on the point comprising of the second panch and the Investigating Officer, Court can still record order of conviction and sentence? (ii) Whether by merely mechanically affixing the label of the 'Selected panch' to panch witnesses when in fact there is indeed no material brought on the record to indicate that they were so selected by the Investigating Officer in conspiracy with the complainant or for some oblique motive by himself alone with a view to falsely implicate and secure conviction of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1997)3GLR2536
M.S. Parikh, J.1. In both these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside respectively the complaint Criminal Case No. Section G(DD) C/No. 544 dated 12-12-1995 C.R. - 3072 of 1995 and Section K(DD) C/No. 265 dated 26-10-1995 C.R. - 2683 of 1995 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.'), which were filed in the concerned Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta in connection with the agreement alleged to have been forged/fabricated in the city of Ahmedabad, which agreement would read as under:This Agreement entered into between M/s. Plywood and Timber Products Agencies, Zone 3/21, Sardar Patel Municipal Timber Market, Behind Gitamandir Lati Bazar, Ahmedabad, hereinafter referred to as 'first party' and Mr. Rajendra Jivanlal Damani (hereinafter referred to as 'second party').The first party is also having and doing works for other firms known as 1. Sharda Plywood Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1996)3GLR416
K.R. Vyas, J.1. The appellants, in this group of three appeals, have challenged the orders dated 29th March 1996 below Exs. 5 and 6 in Civil Suit Nos. 4913 of 1995, 5105 of 1994 and 5106 of 1994 passed by the Auxiliary Chamber Judge, Court No. 18, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, whereby the learned Judge has vacated the ad-interim injunctions granted earlier. Since the facts of these three appeals are common and the question of law involved therein is also common, they can conveniently be disposed of by this common order.2. In view of the fact that number of other suits are pending in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad in respect of the same subject-matter, at the request of the learned Advocates for the parties, it was decided to hear these matters finally and the learned Advocates were heard at length.3. Civil Suit No. 4913 of 1995 has been filed by 13 shop-owners (hereinafter referred to as 'the occupiers') of the building known as Urvashi Tower, constructed on final plot No. 368 of T.P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1997)1GLR10
S.D. Dave, J.1. In this Intra-Court Appeals, we are concerned with the decision rendered by the learned single Judge (Our esteemed Brother M.R. Calla, J.) in Special Civil Application No. 3601 of 1994 with Special Civil Application 12921 of 1994 (Reported in 1995(2) GLR 1178, S.S. Murthy v. State of Gujarat) decided on 9th/10th March, 1995.2. The said Special Civil Applications came to be allowed with the directions as under:(i) The Chief Justice may consider the anomaly in the matters of pay scales of the Private Secretaries to the High Court Judges and the Private Secretaries attached to the officers drawing pay at Rs. 8000/- in the Government Secretariat and keeping in view the observations made hereinabove, may consider as to what pay scales should be prescribed for the holders of the posts of Private Secretaries to the High Court Judges.(ii) In case the Chief Justice decides and prescribes that the pay scale of the Private Secretaries to the High Court Judges should be the pay sca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1997)1GLR647; (1997)IILLJ89Guj
1. By consent these three petitions have been heard together and are being decided accordingly. 2. The prayer almost common in these three petitions is for the revision of pay-scale of Librarian. The initial prayer is to grant pay-scale of Rs. 550-900 with effect from January 1, 1973 and then the pay-scale of Rs. 700-1600 with effect from April 1, 1980 and finally pay-scale of Rs. 2200-4000 with effect from January 1, 1986. 3. The facts in brief concerning the petitioners in these petitions may be stated :- The petitioner Mr. M. S. Pandya in S.C.A. No. 2473 of 1983 has been working as a Librarian in the Office of Director, Drug Control Administration', State of Gujarat, Ahmedabad. He was appointed as such in the year 1964. His pay was fixed at Rs. 5301/- with effect from January 1, 1973 in the scale of Rs. 425-700. According to his say a statutory body known as Board of Experts was created under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The State Government maintains a separate lib...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1998)1GLR398
S.D. Shah, J.1. This group of Appeals From Order under Order 43 Rule l(r) of the C.P. Code are preferred by original defendant No. 1-Mahipatsinh Himatsinh Jadeja in the first four Appeals and Dilip Jayantilal Modi in the last Appeal respectively, against common judgment and order dated 20th June, 1995 passed by learned City Civil Judge below Exhs. 5, 21, 34 and 42 filed in Civil Suit No. 941 of 1991 and 1250 of 1991. The first four Appeals along with C.A. Nos. 2731 to 2734 and 3954 of 1995 were placed for preliminary admissional hearing before the learned single Judge of this Court on 27th June, 1995, who was pleased to admit the said four Appeals and on Civil Applications for stay, ad interim relief as prayed for was granted and this Court admitted A. 0. No. 415 of 1995 and the learned Counsel for the respondents waived service of admission. The matters were thereafter notified before the very learned single Judge for hearing of ad interim relief in the month of August and September, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1998ACJ97; (1997)2GLR1045
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This special criminal application under Article 226 of the Con- stitution has been registered under Rule 31 of the High Court Amended Rules, 998 on an application dated 19.1.1996 received through post from Dharmishtaben Narendrasinh Rana, resident of Moti Sarsan, Tal. Santrampur, Dist. Panchmahals.In her application, she has stated that on 1.11.1995, at about 1.00 hrs. at midnight, M.H. Joshi, P.S.I., L.C.B., Godhra, Dineshbhai, police constable and other members of his staff came and took her husband with them in police jeep. Her husband was taken to C.I.D. office and later on, to Government Guest House, at Lunavada and then, in the morning, to Godhra. At about 7.15 a.m., her husband had gone for urinal, police constable Dinesh also accompanied him at that time, Dinesh came to P.S.I. Joshi and told him that head constable Rana had shot himself. Healing this, Joshi went to the spot and found Rana lying at the door of urinal. Police constable Dinesh removed the revolve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1997CriLJ2896; (1997)2GLR38
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. This is quite an extraordinary case depicting the story of 'Diya or Toofan' where the 'burning torch of the 'Rule of Law' to quite some large extent has been caught surrounded by the stormy cyclonic winds of gross misconduct, indiscipline and abuse of power demonstrating the 'Rule of utter Lawlessness' by some top Government officials dangerously, blowing across the public administration violating, nay rooting out the law at their sweet will, whims and caprice suiting to their selfish exigencies and expendiencies helping out the accused releasing them from the clutches of law !! Now, taking into consideration the startling fact that in some serious cases wherein after the sanction was granted, the corruption cases against some influential public servants came to be withdrawn at the instance of the Home Department in the name of State, leaves no manner of doubt that to the said extent the torch of 'Rule of Law' stands extinguished in the State of Gujarat!! This is simp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1997)2GLR1718
M.S. Parikh, J. 1. Service of Rule waived by Mr. P.B. Majmudar, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. Heard. Both these revisions seek to challenge the judgment and order dated 2-4-1977 rendered by the learned Judges of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad in Appeal From Order No. 43 of 1997 and Appeal From Order No. 44 of 1997.3. The petitioner herein was the original tenant of the suit premises against whom and against the sub-tenantsunlawful assignees, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed H.R.P. Suit No. 1975 of 1977 for obtaining possession of the suit premises. Before that the landlord filed H.R.P. Suit No. 4805 of 1974 on 17-10-1974 for obtaining injunction. This was followed by H.R.P. Suit No. 5203 of 1974 filed on 5-11-1974, which was ultimately withdrawn contending that on 6-5-1977 aforesaid substantial suit for possession, viz., H.R.P. Suit No. 1975 of 1977 was filed. In the said suit the present petitioner being the 1 st defendant was served by s...
Tag this Judgment!