Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1990CriLJ1700; (1990)1GLR129
ORDER1. The petitioner is a holder of licence issued under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and under the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licence, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 (for short 'Control Order'). The petitioner is dealing in essential commodity, namely, kerosene at Dabhoi, District Baroda. It was alleged that the petitioner had issued fake bill in the name of one Gitaben Upadhyay of village Ghandod, Dabhoi Taluka showing that 3500 litres of kerosene was sold to her; that the signature of the customer on the bill issued was also fake. The stock of kerosene was illegally disposed of elsewhere and correct accounts of the receipt and distribution of kerosene were not maintained as required under the relevant provisions of the Control Order. The detaining authority after going through the material placed before it came to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed breach of the provisions of the conditions of licence issue...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1989CriLJ765; (1988)2GLR1404
ORDERM.B. Shah, J.1. The only question which requires determination in this revision application is whether the Superintendent, Central Excise, who has investigated the case is required to file complaint or submit charge-sheet before the Magistrate for the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner-accused under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. Learned Counsel Mr. Barot submitted that under Section 53 of the Act the powers of an officer in charge of a police station for investigation of the offences under the Act are given to the Central Excise Officers, the customs officers and other officers. Therefore, respondent No. 1 is required to submit charge-sheet after completion of the investigation and he cannot file private complaint before the learned Magistrate. For emphasizing his submission, he submitted that under different provisions of the Act different types of powers are conferred upo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1988)1GLR183
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings in the Criminal Case No. 17 of 1987 pending before the learned JMFC, Sidhpur.2. On perusal of the complaint which is annexed as Annexure-A to the petition, it appears that the complaint was filed under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC as also under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant is doing the business of selling cold drinks in the Court compound at Sidhpur. He was also keeping 'Thums Up' drink manufactured and supplied by the original accused present petitioners. It is also alleged that on 15th May, 1987 a customer asked for 'Thums Up' bottle which the complainant had purchased from the Garden Hindu Hotel who are the distributors of 'Thums Up' for Sidhpur vide bill No. 3332. When the complainant took the bottle of 'Thums Up' he fou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1987CriLJ1732; (1987)2GLR903
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. Is the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Babubhai Parshottamdas v. State, 22 Guj LR 1232 : 1982 Cri LJ 284 impliedly overruled by the decision of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Lakshmi Brahman : 1983CriLJ839 This question was raised before our learned brother M. B. Shah, J. in Kantibhai v. State, 1985 (1) 26 Guj LR 339. He held that the said Full Bench decision stands impliedly overruled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Brahman's case (supra). N. H. Bhatt, J. in Misc. Criminal Application No. 2199 of 1985 decided on 22-11-1985, did not agree with the view taken by M. B. Shah, J. in Kantilal's case (Kantibhai's case) (supra) and held otherwise. Therefore, when Misc. Criminal Application No. 441 of 1986 came up for hearing before our learned brother D. C. Gheewala, J. he thought it fit to refer the matter to a larger bench in view of the conflicting decisions given by M. B. Shah, J. and N. H. Bhatt, J. For the same reason, our learned brother ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1987Guj113; (1987)1GLR437
Ravani, J.1. In the annals of history, it is difficult to discover dictator, a feudal lord or a monarch, who openly discarded ' public interest ' and asserted his legal right to rule the people and consider 'public interest' as irrelevant. Even military dictators, while exploiting the people and inflicting miseries on them, cover their faces by the veil of 'Public interest' But in a democracy wedded to the welfare of the people and where the Constitution of the country has promised the people establishment of an egalitarian society based on socialistic principles, a nationalised bank (which is 'State' within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution) asserts through its senior counsel (Mr. M. S. Sanghvi) that the bank is under no legal obligation to take into consideration 'public interest' while executing a money decree and, therefore, it shall disregard the same. Shocking as it is, this is the stand of the bank and not a mere legal point raised by an attorney of the bank. Therefo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1986)54CTR(Guj)272; (1987)1GLR3; [1986]162ITR28(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. Since common question of law and facts arise in these two petitions, we intend to dispose of them by this common judgment, though we will shortly set out the relevant facts and circumstances in which the respective petitioners have moved these petitions challenging the validity of section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which has been placed on the statute book by the Finance Act. 1984, with effect from April 1, 1985, and rule 6G as well as Forms Nos. 3CA to 3CE of the Income-tax (Amendment) Rules, 1985, promulgated on January 31, 1985, and made effective from April 1, 1985, and section 271B providing for penalty for not getting the accounts audited broadly on the ground of the impugned provisions being violative of articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and, consequently, therefore, praying for appropriate writs, orders and directions to quash and set aside the said provisions. 2. Special Civil Application No. 2068 of 1985 has been moved by two registered asso...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1986Guj209; (1986)1GLR1
ORDER1-2. x x x x 3. The questions referred for consideration of the larger bench are whether the Labour Courts under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and the Industrial Disputes Act and Industrial Courts under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and Industrial Tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act are Courts and Courts subordinate to the High Court in terms of S. 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, and whether the Board of Nominees functioning under S. 96 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 as well as the Co-operative Tribunals constituted under the said Act are courts and courts subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 4. In order to answer the aforesaid questions, it will be necessary to have a look at the relevant statutory provisions holding the field.11. Statutory provisions :- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines contempt of courts ~s per section 2 of the said Act. Civil contempt is defined by section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1986Guj156; (1986)1GLR101
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant, original plaintiff, of Civil Suit No. I of 1985 in the District Court of Panchmahals at Godhra has brought in challenge the judgment and order of learned single Judge of this Court, M. B. Shah, J. in Appeal from Order which was dismissed by the learned single Judge of this Court in exercise of his powers under O. 43. R. 1 of the Civil P.C., 1908. The appellant-plaintiff had moved an interim injunction application Ex. 5 under O. 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with S. 151 of the Civil P.C. praying for interim injunction pending the suit against the respondents-defendants. After hearing the concerned parties, the learned Joint District Judge of Panchmahals at Godhra dismissed the application Ex. 5 for interim injunction and vacated the ad interim relief. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned trial Judge, the appellant preferred Appeal from Order as miscellaneous appeal under O. 43, R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1986)2GLR910
B.K. Mehta, Actg. C.J.1. Since these two petitions, first at the instance of 33 aggrieved workmen challenging the closure of Bakubhai Mangaldas Institute of Mental Health (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute'), and second at the instance of the said Institute challenging the award of arbitration under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act directing reinstatement of 33 workmen-respondents Nos. 2 to 34 of the said petition, raise common questions of law and facts, we intend to dispose them of by this common judgment. In order to appreciate these questions in proper perspective, it is necessary to set out briefly the relevant facts and circumstances which have led to the filing of these two petitions.2. B.M. Institute is a non-profit, research, service and training organisation interested broadly in preventive mental health services. It was originally founded as a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 in the year 1966. It was also registered as a public...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1986Guj162; (1985)2GLR1264
Majmudar, J.1. The present first appeal has been filed by the original defendant No. 3 against whom special civil suit No. 27 of 1972 was filed in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Surendranagar. Respondent No. 1 society was the plaintiff and respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were original defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 respectively. The said suit was filed for recovering Rs. 51,296.45 as principal amount and Rs. 12,054.55 as interest at this rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till realization from the concerned defendants including the present appellant defendant No. 3. The suit came to be decreed by the learned trial Judge who held respondent No. 1 society plaintiff to be entitled to Rs. 57,300/with proportionate interest and. cost on Rs. 51,296/- at the rate of 6% per annum from all the defendants jointly and severally. The present appellant original defendant No. 3 being aggrieved by the said decree has come in appeal before this Court. So far as other defendants...
Tag this Judgment!