Gujarat Court February 1963 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. I.G. Thakore
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Guj283
Desai, C.J. 1. This special civil application raises very interesting questions regarding the powers of an Industrial Tribunal when dealing with an application made under Section 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. Mulji Ganda, the 2nd respondent before us, was an employee of the Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd., the petitioner before us. For most of the time he had done the work of a stone feed coolie. It is alleged that on 6th September 1961 he threatened Dulerai Dave, the shift mechanical engineer employed by the Dhrangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. and used abusive language. According to the evidence of Dave given before the inquiry officer, he threatened to chop off Dave and thereafter to chop off all persons in the office. He is further alleged to have stated that Dave knew that he, Mulji Ganda, had been sentenced to jail for six months and that Dave should think over the matter and that after killing Dave he would kill all and sundry. This incident occurred on the early...
Salman Raje Vs. Madhavsang Banesang and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-1963
Reported in: (1963)4GLR817
J.M. Shelat, J.1. The controversy in this application centers round S. No. 357 situate in the village Antali Bhimji Taluka Dhandhuka District Ahmedabad. On May 31 1943 opponents 1 and 2 mortgaged this land to the Petitioner. In 1958 they filed suit No. 79 of 1958 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) at Dhandhuka against the petitioner praying for redemption of the mortgage and possession of the land. In that suit the petitioner contended that he was a protected tenant and therefore possession could not be taken from him by virtue of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 He also contended that he was a tenant long before the mortgage and that being so he was protected by the aforesaid Act. On these contentions the learned Civil Judge framed two issues. The first issue was whether the petitioner was a deemed tenant by virtue of his being a mortgagee in possession before the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 came into force and the sec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›