Gujarat Court April 1966 Judgments
Haji Abdul Gafur Haji Hussenbhai Vs. the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporati ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-29-1966
Reported in: (1967)8GLR65
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal with leave under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent raises a very interesting question, namely, how far the doctrine of constructive notice affects an auction purchaser who purchases at a sale held by the Court in execution of a decree, property which is subject to a charge in favour of the Municipal Corporation for arrears of municipal taxes. The property which forms the subject matter of dispute in the present appeal and to which, for the sake of convenience we will refer as the suit property, originally belonged to one Haji Nurmahmad Haji Abdulmian. Sometime towards the end of February 1949, Haji Nurmahmad Haji Abdulmian ran into financial difficulties and on 7th March 1949 a petition was presented for adjudicating him as an insolvent. On the petition interim Receivers were appointed to take charge of the estate of Haji Nurmahmad Haji Abdulmian and by an order dated 14th October 1950 he was adjudicated an insolvent. The Receivers appointed under the orde...
Tag this Judgment!Lalsang Bhimji Vs. Hamidmiyan Huseinmiyan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-27-1966
Reported in: (1966)7GLR861
Akbar S. Sarela, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit for eviction filed by the respondent against the appellant. The appellant who was the tenant of the respondent was sought to be evicted from a shop occupied by him at a monthly rent of Rs. 31/- as a tenant. The appellant came in the premises as a tenant on 25th October, 1955 but failed to pay any rent and this suit was filed on 15th November, 1956. The appellant raised various contentions one of which was that he cannot be evicted in view of the provisions of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act, 1951, (Act No. XXII of 1951). He also prayed for fixation of standard rent under that Act. It is not necessary to refer to the other contentions as they do not come up for consideration in second appeal. The trial court found against the appellant in respect of the contention that the Saurashtra Rent Control Act applied and that the standard rent could be fixed thereunder. The appellant went in appeal to the District Court and the learned Distric...
Tag this Judgment!Panchal Shankerlal Mathurdas Vs. Ranchhodlal Govindlal and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-26-1966
Reported in: (1966)7GLR1039
B.J. Divan, J.1. The petitioner in this Civil revision application is the original defendant and the opponents are the original plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are the joint owners of a building situated at Ahmedabad and the defendant is their tenant on the ground-floor of that building. The plaintiffs are related as opponent No. 2 is the widow of the deceased brother of opponent No. 1 and hence are joint owners of this particular property. The two joint owners are residing on the upper floor of the house and the tenant is occupying the shop premises on the ground-floor. The tenant is a silversmith manufacturing, storing and selling silver ornaments in this shop which is situated in the front portion of the suit house, for about 14 years. On the first floor, there are three rooms and a loft, occupied by the landlords. The landlords filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad for evicting the tenant on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlords and also on the...
Tag this Judgment!New Commercial Mills Company Ltd., and anr. Vs. Industrial Court (i.G. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-22-1966
Reported in: (1966)0GLR1044; (1966)IILLJ791Guj
Bhagwati, J.1. These petitions raise a short but interesting question of law relating to the construction of S. 66 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the act). The facts giving rise to these petitions are identical and may be briefly stated as follows. The Textile Labour Association is a representative union for the cotton textile industry in the area of Ahmedabad and is registered as such under S. 14 of the Act. On 22 June, 1949 a registered agreement was entered into between the Textile Labour Association and the Ahmedabad Millowners' Association which provided various benefits including wage-scales for clerks in the cotton textile industry. Clause 5 of the registered agreement provided a separate wage-scale for those employees who occupy a position lower than that of a full-fledged clerk but higher than that of an operative and who have come to be known in the cotton textile industry as semi-clerks and that wage-scale was Rs. 40-3-70-EB-4-90-5-1...
Tag this Judgment!Ranchhodbhai Desaibhai Patel Vs. Collector of Panchmahals and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-21-1966
Reported in: (1966)0GLR1024; (1966)IILLJ779Guj
Miabhoy, C.J.1. Petitioner, Ranchhodbhai Desaibhai Patel, prays for an order quashing an order dated 17 January, 1962 passed by the Collector, Panchmahals, and for an order of his reinstatement to the post of the secretary, Boru Group Panchayat, Taluka Kalol, on the same terms and conditions as governed his service prior to the aforesaid order dated 17 January, 1962. Petitioner also prays for an order directing respondents to pay him his salary from the date of his suspension till the date of his reinstatement. Respondent 1 is the Collector of Panchmahals and respondent 2 is the State of Gujarat. The petition is under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Unfortunately, the facts which have been stated in the petition and ink the affidavit-in-reply have not been correctly stated. Even though some of the facts are taken from the documents which have been produced in the case, the facts as stated in the petition and the affidavit-in-reply are not borne out by those documents...
Tag this Judgment!Ranchhodbai Deasibhai Patel Vs. Collector of Panchamahals and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Guj92
Miabhoy, C.J.(1) Petitioner Ranchhodbhai Desaibhai Patel, prays for an order quashing an order dated 17th January 1962, passed by the Collector, Panchmahals, and for an order of his reinstatement to the post of the Secretary, Boru Group Panchayat, Taluka Kalol, on the same terms and conditions as governed his service prior to the aforesaid order dated 17th January, 1962. Petitioner also prays for an order directing respondents to pay him his salary from the date of his suspension till the date of his reinstatement. Respondent No. 1 is the Collector of Panchmahals and respondent No.2 is the State of Gujarat. The petition is under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.(2) Unfortunately, the facts which have been stated in the petition and in the affidavit in reply have not been correctly stated. Even though, some of the facts are taken from the documents which have been produced in the case, the facts as stated in the petition and the affidavit in reply are not borne out by thos...
Tag this Judgment!Kantilal Ambalal and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-19-1966
Reported in: 1968CriLJ758
1. Both these appeals are allowed and the convictions and sentences of both the appellants are set aside, because there is no evidence to prove the warrant in question. A warrant is a public document, and the only way to prove such a document is by production of certified copy of the same. A certified copy is not produced in this case. The appeals are, therefore, allowed and the convictions and sentences of the appellants are set aside....
Tag this Judgment!Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. Somalal Nathji Shiroiya and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Guj172; (1967)0GLR686
(1) These two Second Appeals have been filed by the Godhra Electricity Company Ltd. (Hereinafter referred to as `the company'), as both the Courts had decreed the suits filed by the consumers. Both these appeals raise common questions of law and so they are disposed of by me by this common judgment.(2) The short facts which have given rise to these appeals are as under:(2a) The Godhra Electricity Company was issued a licence on 17th October 1922 by the Government under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, hereinafter referred top as 'the Electricity Act', to Lady Sulochana Chinubhai. The present company is the successor of the said licensee. It appears that after the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'the Supply Act', had come into force, rating committee was constituted at the request of the company on 19th January 1950 under S. 57(2) of the supply Act. The rating committee had submitted its report on 5th November, 1951 at Ex.42 and thereafter an order was issued...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Sutar Bachu Vasta
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-1966
Reported in: (1967)8GLR139
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent, who was charged under Section 39 and Section 40 of the Electricity Act, 1910. The prosecution case was that the accused had a license to take electricity to his flour mill, but he interfered with the meter in such a way that the meter did not show the correct reading.2. The Electricity Company gave him permission to take as much energy as he wanted. Therefore, the taking of electric energy would not amount to theft. Interference with the meter would not amount to theft of electric energy, which he was perfectly entitled to take. The respondent should have been prosecuted under a different section for the interference with the meter. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Jethanand Kikamal Vs. Ramkrishna Jethanand and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-1966
Reported in: (1967)8GLR202
B.J. Divan, J.1. In this Civil Revision Application the petitioner is the original defendant and the opponents are the original plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are the owners of a building situated at Baroda and the petitioner is a tenant occupying premises consisting of ground-floor where a shop is situated and residential premises on the first and second floors where the tenant is residing. The plaintiffs filed the suit on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947. The defendant con-tended that the premises were not reasonably and bona fide required by the landlords. The landlords wanted the tenant to vacate the entire portion viz. the shop on the ground-floor and the residential accommodation on the two upper floors. The suit was tried by the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Baroda and he decreed the plaintiffs' suit partially. He decreed the suit so far as the premises of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »