Gujarat Court March 1964 Judgments
Patel Kanchanbhai Mangalbhai and anr. Vs. Maneklal Maganlal Gandhi and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-24-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Guj19; (1965)GLR200
Bhagwati, J. 1. Two questions of considerable importance and significance arise on this petition. One is whether under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1901, and the Gujarat District Panchayats Election Rules, 1962, made by the Government of Gujarat in exercise of its powers under Section 323 of the Act, it is open to an aggrieved person to challenge the validity of an election under Section 24 on the ground that the nomination paper of a candidate was improperly rejected by the Returning Officer or is the decision of the Returning Officer regarding rejection of the nomination paper dual in the sense that it cannot be impugned even as a ground for setting aside the election under Section 24. The other is as to what is the consequence if more than one nomination paper in favour of a candidate are subscribed by the same proposer: are all the nomination papers invalid in such a case or is the nomination paper first accepted by the Returning Officer valid and only the other no...
Tag this Judgment!Mohmadmiya Kasammiya and anr. Vs. Industrial Court, Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-1964
Reported in: (1964)GLR969; (1965)ILLJ535Guj
Shelat, C.J. 1. The two petitioners have been working in the drawing-in department of respondent 2 company as reachers in the second shift and have filed this petition challenging the order passed by the third labour court in Application No. 234 of 1959, dated 10 December, 1959, and confirmed by the Industrial court by its order in Appeal (I.C.) No. 11 of 1960, dated 28 July, 1960. 2. Prior to 1947, there was no system of change-over in the different shifts in the textile mills in Ahmedabad. In 1946, however, a submission bearing No. 9 of 1946 between the Ahmedabad Millowners' Association, Ahmedabad, and the Textile Labour Association, Ahmedabad, was made before the industrial court at Bombay wherein the industrial court, by an interim award, passed inter alia the following order : 'We therefore hold that mills should be allowed to work three shifts if they want to, with a system of change-over. Ordinarily the period of the three shifts should be as follows :- First shift ... 7 a.m. to...
Tag this Judgment!Bapalal Khushaldas Gosalia Vs. V.R. Prasad and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-11-1964
Reported in: (1964)10GLR633
Shelat, C.J.(1) This is a petition for the writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, for quashing the order passed by the first respondent dated October 29, 1959, for prohibiting the respondents from enforcing, implementing or executing the said order and for directing the first respondent to withdraw and/or cancel the aforesaid order. The impugned order came to be passed in the following circumstances:(2) At all material times, the petitioner owned a house called 'Manju Villa' situate at Jorawarnagar. In 1958 and 1959, the petitioner was ordinarily residing at Marmagoa where he was carrying on the business of mining. It was the case of the petitioner that in about 1946, he purchased two ingots of gold in Bombay from the open market at the rates then prevailing. In or about August 1958, he came to Jorawarnagar where he stayed in his aforesaid bungalow for about twenty to twenty-five days and returned thereafter to Marmagoa some time in September 1958. On December 4, 1958, the cust...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal Harjivandas and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-06-1964
Reported in: (1964)5GLR924
J.M. Shelat, C.J.1. The petitioners are the owners of Survey No. 205/1 of Paldi situate near Hirabaug within the municipal limits of the third respondent Corporation and admeasuring 4598 square yards. They had purchased this plot by four different sale deeds all dated October 1, 1957 with the object of constructing thereon bungalows for themselves. Soon after the purchase petitioner No. 1 applied for permission for N.A. use and by an order dated March 22, 1958 the City Deputy Collector Ahmedabad granted that permission. Thereafter the first petitioner submitted building plans to the third respondent Corporation but the estate and City Improvement Officer of the third respondent Corporation by his letter dated May 28, 1958 declined to give sanction on the ground that the land in question was being acquired. Since nothing appeared to have been done for about two years the petitioners through their advocate wrote to the third respondent on July 26, 1960 enquiring as to why no intimation o...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Chanchal Vs. Ganpatram Jadavji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Guj145; (1964)GLR1009
Vakil , J.(1) This is an appeal ruled by the original plaintiff against the decision the Civil Judge) senior Division) Abroad, dismissing her Special civil No.4 of 1957. The few material facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows: -(2) The appellant Bal Chanchal, widow of Nabhai filed the aforesaid suit against deceased Ganpatram Jadavji for the award obtained by the said Ganpatram under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Act, 1947 in Consolidated Case No. 8051 of 1950 against her, set aside on the ground that the said Ganpatram had obtained the said award by practising fraud on the Court inasmuch as he had perjured himself and had also made use of two forged documents as evidence to support his false case, she also prayed for the possession of the suit land. For the sake of convenience we shall refer to Bal Chanchal as the plaintiff and Ganpatram as defendant hereinafter in this judgment. The plaintiff's case was that her deceased husband had purchased the suit land f...
Tag this Judgment!Kesarichand Amrutlal Shah Vs. Sakarchand Manekchand Ghadiali Deaceased ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-1964
Reported in: (1964)5GLR982
B.J. Divan, J.1. The petitioner in this Civil Revision Application is the original defendant and the opponent is the heir of the original plaintiff. The plaintiff is the landlord and the defendant is the tenant in respect of certain premises situated at Gopipura Main Road Surat. The contractual rent of the premises in suit was Rs. 40/- per month. The tenant was contending that this rent was excessive and should be Rs 14/- per month. The tenant had filed an application under Section 11 of the Bombay Rent Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for fixation of the standard rent of the premises being Rent Application No. 355 of 1957 in the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division Surat. Thereafter the landlord filed a suit being Regular Civil suit No. 762 of 1958 and this suit came up for hearing before the Third Joint Civil judge Junior Division Surat. At the hearing of the suit the application for fixation of standard rent and the suit were bo...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Mehsana Vs. Bharat Vijay Mills Ltd. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-02-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Guj1; (1964)GLR671(GJ)
Shelat, C.J. (1) By his letter dated May 31 1961, the Inspector General of Registration, without framing any specific questions, has made to us the present Reference. Though specific questions have not been raised, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Revenue has agreed that in substance the following question would arise from this Reference. The question which can be culled out from the reference is whether the Collector is entitled, for the purpose of ascertaining the adequacy or other wise of the amount of stamp duty paid on the deed of conveyance in question submitted for registration, to go behind the consideration set out therein and ascertain the true amount or the value of consideration on which the stamp duty is payable.(2) The Reference arise from the following facts: By an agreement dated April 22, 1959 made between Bharat Vijay Mills Ltd .,of the one part and The Ahmadabad of the other part ,the Bharat Vijay Mills Ltd., agreed to sell and The Ahmedabad agreed to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›