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cases wherein after the sanction was granted, the corruption cases against some influential public servants came to be withdrawn at the instance of the Home Department in the name of State, leaves no manner of doubt that to the said extent the torch of 'Rule of Law' stands extinguished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)3GLR1912
J.M. Panchal, J.1. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 is directed against judgment and decree dated March 14, 1983, rendered by the learned Assistant Judge, Kutch at Bhuj, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 82 of 1980, by which decree of eviction dated August 27, 1980, passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Anjar, in Regular Civil Suit No. 47 of 1977 against the appellant, who was tenant inducted by mortgagees, is confirmed.2. The facts leading to the present appeal are as under. The dispute between the parlies relates to a shop situated towards the west of steps on southern side door of Madhav Raiji Temple, Anjar. The original owner of the suit premises was Thakorshi Naranji. He had mortgaged property to Laxmidas Mulji and Padamshi Mulji for 3,001 Kories for 51 years by registered mortgage deed which was executed on Kartik Vad-5 of S.Y. 1967. The original appellant, i.e., Joshi Trikamdas Padamshi was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises in S.Y. 1995 by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1998)3GLR2438
M.R. Calla, J.1. These three Special Civil Applications have been filed on behalf of the detenu concerned in each of these three cases, i.e., Shri Naresh Ramkumar Mittal, Surendra Ramkumar Mittal and Rajesh Ramkumar Mittal, through their wives, namely, Ms. Urmila N. Mittal, Ms. Manju S. Mittal and Ms. Priti R. Mittal respectively. These three petitioners have challenged the detention orders passed against their husbands separately in each of these three petitions on 15th January, 1996, 15th January 1996 and 12th January 1996 respectively by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, as specially empowered under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, which will be hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA Act'. All these three orders have been signed by Shri K.L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India. The detention orders against the three detenus residing at Mitta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1996)3GLR783
C.K. Thakker, J. (Cav.)1. All these petitions have been placed before a Larger Bench in view of an order of Reference made by our learned brother N.N. Mathur, J. on March 23, 1995. When the matters were placed for hearing before the learned single Judge, it was contended that the orders passed by different Division Benches were inconsistent and contradictory. There was also discrepancy and disagreement between Full Bench decisions. The learned single Judge felt that there was some conflict between the Full Bench Judgment, 'in order to reconcile between two Full Bench Judgments and to have a proper ratio decided to cover a field and also keeping in view of public importance of the issue', it was desirable to refer the matters to a Larger Bench. The Full Bench decisions are Gorva Vibhag Cooperative Housing Societies Association v. State of Gujarat 1992( 1) GLR 654 (First Full Bench) and H.P. Dave v. Sub-Registrar, Rajkot 1994(2) GLR 1222 (Second Full Bench). The question is what is reaso...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1996)3GLR713
J.M. Panchal, J.1. The order of detention dated April 5, 1993, which is passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Gujarat, Home Department, in exercise of powers conferred on him by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ('the Act' for short) against the petitioner with a view to preventing him from smuggling the goods, is subject-matter of challenge in the present petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Though the order of detention was passed on April 5, 1993, it could be executed on November 24, 1993. The competent authority issued Declaration No. 19 of 1993 under Section 9(1) of the Act, as it was satisfied that the detenu was likely to smuggle goods into Indian Customs Waters contiguous to the State of Gujarat. Before that, the State Government had forwarded report in respect of detention order to the Central Government on April 6, 1993 as required by Section 3(2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1995]84CompCas230(Guj)
S.D. Shah, J.1. Mafatlal Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'MIL' for brevity) is the transferee company, which has moved this petition for sanction of this court to the scheme of amalgamation of Mafatlal Fine Spinning and . (hereinafter referred to as 'MFL' for brevity), the transferor company under section 391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. * * * * 2. The transferor company, MFL, is proposed to be amalgamated with the petitioner company under the following circumstances and for the following reasons : (1) The proposed amalgamation will pave the way for better, more efficient and economic control in the running of operations. (2) Economies in administrative and management costs will improve in combined profitability. (3) The amalgamated company will have the benefit of the combined reserves, manufacturing assets, manpower and cash flows of the two companies. The combined technological, managerial and financial resources are expected to enhance the capability of the amalg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2001]103CompCas1041(Guj); (1995)1GLR673
M.B. Shah, J.1. The question involved in these appeals is whether injunction granted by the learned single judge should be continued till the company petition filed under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, is decided. The hearing of the application for grant or refusal of an injunction pending the hearing of the main matter would not normally take much time. Still however, the matter is required to be heard at length because of heavy stake, the so-called public interest and the vexed questions of law involved in the matter, even though the main company petition is fixed for final hearing shortly. In this background, it would be appropriate to begin with the underlying observations made by Chinnapa Reddy J. in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd. [1986] 59 Comp Cas 548 as under (at page 559) :'Problems of high finance and broad fiscal policy which truly are not and cannot be the province of the court for the very simple reason that we lack the ne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1995Guj12; (1994)1GLR713
ORDERB.S. Kapadia, J.1. The present revision application is filed by the defendants against the opponent-plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed the suit against the tenants being Civil Suit No. 80 of 1973 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) at Surat which was, on the formation of the Small Cause Court, numbered as Small Cause Case No. 1309 of 1975. The suit was filed against the tenants under the Bombay Rent Act under Section 13(1)(A) and (L). The plaintiffs suit for the possession of the suit premises was dismissed but a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs. 33/- from the defendant No. 1. Against the said decree the plaintiff filed the appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 303 of 1977 and the said appeal has been decided by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Surat, on 5th April, 1980 by allowing the appeal. The judgment and the decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit was set aside and the suit, of the plaintiff-appellant for possess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1992CriLJ3298
K.G. Shah, J. 1. On 20th September 1984 the people of Mangadh, a small village of Bhavnagar District experienced a horrifying nightmare when there was a carnage resulting in ten brutal murders in a span of less than two hours, committed by a Group of assailants by their wanton firing and use of other weapons at unarmed innocent victims. According to the prosecution, the accused did this with a view to settling the scores with the Patels, who were acquitted in a case, arising from the incident of 1982 where three Darbars (Rajputs) had lost their lives. Of course, in between, there were many criminal cases between them. Thus, in the present proceedings, we are required to deal with a case where revenge or vendetta is alleged to be the sole motive. The present appeals arise out of the judgment and order of conviction and sentences rendered in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1985, with which was consolidated, Sessions Case No. 124 of 1985, by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, who at the end of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1992]85STC258(Guj)
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this group of petitions, a common question of vires of section 15B of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, as amended by section 2 of the Gujarat Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1990, arises for consideration. It is the contention of the petitioners that the said provision is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. 2. In order to appreciate this common grievance of the petitioners, it is necessary to not a few introductory facts : 3. I. Introductory facts : The petitioners are dealers registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 ('the Act' for short). They carry on the activity of manufacturing and selling various goods in this State. For the purpose, they require raw materials which are to be used in manufacturing the end-products. The raw materials purchased by them in the State and used in the manufacturing process have been subjected to purchase tax by the impugned provisions. The petitioners contend that the State Legislature...
Tag this Judgment!