Gujarat Court November 1966 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.
Pradyumansinhji Arjunsinhji Jadeja and anr. Vs. Patel Narshi Thakarshi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-25-1966
Reported in: (1967)8GLR322
N.M. Miabhoy, C.J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition has a long and chequered background, but, the point which arises for determination is a narrow one and that point is about the legality of the order dated 29th March 1962, passed by G. F. Mankodi. Commissioner, Rajkot Division, in exercise of the power vested in the Government under Section 63 of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951 (hereafter called the Reforms Act), by which, that officer held that the order, dated 22nd October 1956, passed by the former State of Saurashtra was void, and restored the order, dated 19th October 1954, passed by the Special Mamlatdar, Gondal, under which, it was held that petitioners and their uncle were joint and that, therefore, they were not entitled to allotment of separate gharkhed lands.2. The facts which are necessary to be stated to dispose of the petition are as follows: One Jethiji was the girasdar holding a giras estate known as Mengh...
Modi Kuberdas Hargovinddas Vs. the State of Bombay (Now Gujarat) and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-23-1966
Reported in: (1967)8GLR370
A.R. Bakshi, J.1. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 958 of 1966 was the Inamdar and owner of the village called Saijpur Bogha and the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 959 of 1966 were the tenants of the lands belonging to the Inamdar of the village. In 1942-43 certain lands out of this village were requisitioned for the purpose of construction of an aerodrome and notifications were issued for the purpose, whereafter possession of the lands was taken. In 1949, it was decided to acquire these lands, whereupon notifications dated 16th March 1949 were published in the Bombay Government Gazette dated 31st March 1949 whereby it was proposed to acquire the said lands for the purpose mentioned therein and it was declared that on the publication of the notifications, the said lands vested in the Government as mentioned therein. It may be mentioned that the original order of requisition was passed under the Defence of India Act, 1939 and as that Act had already expired,...
Ochhavlal Jethalal Desai and ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-22-1966
Reported in: (1967)8GLR359
N.M. Miabhoy, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging two notifications under the Land Acquisition Act (hereafter called the Act), to be presently mentioned. Petitioners are owners of two fields bearing survey numbers 1025/1 and 1025/2 situated at Balasinor, District Kaira. First respondent is the State of Gujarat. It published, on 15th February 1962, a notification dated 1st February 1962 under Section 4 of the Act, stating that the above lands were likely to be needed for a public purpose, namely, 'for establishing a market yard for the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Balasinor. ' After the objections under Section 5A of the Act were decided, first respondent published, on 4th October 1962, a notification dated 20th September 1962 under Section 6 of the Act, declaring that the above two fields were needed 'for establishing market yard for the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Balasinor. ' Petitioners thereafter filed the prese...
Musamiya Imam Haiderbux Razvi Vs. the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Cit ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-22-1966
Reported in: (1968)9GLR545
N.K. Vakil, J.1. These three Special Civil Applications relate to agricultural lands belonging to a religious trust claimed to be a public religious trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. Most of the facts in these three petitions are common. As the points of law that may arise were also accepted to be common, they were fixed to be heard together. At the hearing, however, we found that the main points of law arising in the Civil Application No. 475 of 1961, the first of the three, would not arise in the latter two and some of the facts also differ. But all the same it will be convenient to deal with them together and dispose them of by one common judgment. We shall, however, set out the special facts and features of the latter two as and when necessary for coming to the conclusion in respect thereof. We had also allowed the learned advocates appearing for the respondents in the latter two petitions to intervene and argue the law points.2. The petitioner in all the three Writ Pe...
The Manekchowk and Ahmedabad Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. I.G. Thakore and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-17-1966
Reported in: (1968)10GLR786
N.G. Shelat, J.1. These petitions raise a short yet an important question relating to the extent and power of a Labour Court under Section 78(1) A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'.2. The facts leading to these petitions are quite simple. Narsinhbhai Motibhai, the respondent No. 2 in Special Civil Application No. 456 of 1963 was serving as a clerk and that way an employee in the Manek-Chowk & Ahmedabad ., to be referred to hereinafter as the petitioner-Mills, since last about 28 years. On 29-4-1960 at about 11-40 a.m. while respondent No. 2 was on his duty in the office room of the Mills, the Manager of the petitioner-Mills happened to pars through that room, and he found respondent No. 2 sleeping with legs stretched on the Gadi. He bad to be awakened by crying out by the Cashier working in the same office room. That led the Manager of the Mills to give him a notice Ex. 8 calling upon him to explain and show cause as to why he shou...
Abdul Rahim Abdul Sidique and anr. Vs. Shantilal Vanechand and Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-10-1966
Reported in: (1967)8GLR702
P.N. Bhagwali, J.1. A very short point of law arises in this revision application. The facts giving rise to the revision application are few and may be briefly stated as follows. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants to recover possession of a motor truck under an agreement dated 6th January 1962. The agreement was executed by the first defendant who is the son of the second defendant. The defendants in their written statement contended that the first defendant was a minor at the date of the suit and the suit was, therefore, incompetent against him. The defendants also alleged that since at the date of the agreement, the first defendant was a minor, the agreement even if executed by him was void. Various other defences were also raised on behalf of the defendants but it is not necessary to refer to them for the purpose of deciding the present revision application. On the pleadings of the parties several issues were raised by the learned trial Judge and out of those issues ...
Liberty Talkies Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-08-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Guj280; (1967)GLR609
Bhagwati, J.(1) A short question of considerable importance relating to the construction of the Bombay Entertainments Duty Act, 1923, arises in the present petitions. The petitions are twelve in number and the facts giving rise to the petitions are only the difference in the amounts of entertainments duty demanded by the Collector and the periods for which they are so demanded. It will, therefore, be sufficient to state the facts of petition No. 595 of 1962 in so far as they bear upon the question in controversy in the present petitions. The petitioners are proprietors of a Cinema Theatre in the town of Junagarh and they trues at the said theatre. Prior to 30th April 1960 the entertainments duty was charged by applying the statutory percentage to the total amount received by the petitioners from the cinema-goers both in respect of admission to the cinema theatre as also on account of entertainments duty. As a result of a circular issued by the Collector was levied from and after 30th A...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›