Gujarat Court April 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.
Jethalal Someshwar Dave Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Guj186; (1966)GLR850
ORDER(1) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by Jethalal Someshwar Dave. Petitioner has asked substantially for three reliefs. The first relief is that of a declaration that petitioners was entitled to recover from the two respondents or either of them pension in accordance with the pension rules incorporated in Resolution dated 30th May 1951, passed by the former Government of Bombay (hereafter called the Pension rules simpliciter). The second relief is that respondents should be directed to pay to petitioner a sum of Rs. 18,360/- that being the arrears of petitioner's pension upto August 23, 1962 such dearness allowance as is permissible under the rules. The third relief is that of a direction to respondents or either of them to direction to respondents or either of the to pay to petitioners pension in further at the rate of Rs.108/- per month. The petition was originally filed against the State of Gujarat only, but on an objection being raised by that Stat...
Testeels Ltd. Vs. N.M. Desai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-05-1966
Reported in: AIR1970Guj1; (1969)GLR622(GJ)
Bhagwati, C.J.1. This Reference raises a very important question in the field of administrative law. The question is whether an administrative officer dicharging quasi-judicial fuctions is boun to give reasons in support of order he makes. Is it required of him that he should make a speaking order? The question arises in reference to an order made by the conciliation officer under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A conciliation proceeding was pending before the conciliation officer in regard to an industrial dispute between the petitioner and its workmen. During the pendency of the conciliation proceeding the petitioner discharged the second respondent who was one of the workmen employed in the factory of the petitioner after following the procedure prescribed by the Standing Orders. The discharge was for misconduct not connected with the industrial dispute pending before the conciliation officer and it was, therefore, necessary for the petitioner under the provis...
State of Bombay (Now Gujarat) Vs. Vala Harishchandra Sinhji Dansinhji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-04-1966
Reported in: (1966)7GLR1077
Akbar S. Sarela, J.1. The short question arising for determination in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff-respondent was liable to be assessed for non-Gharkhed in his holding at the rate of 12 1/2 % of the total assessment of those lands. The plaintiff's case was that he was not so liable. The contention of the State-defendant was that he was so liable at that rate. Both the lower courts have found in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The defendant-State has come in appeal.2. The facts bearing on this question are few and are not in dispute. The plaintiff-respondent was the holder of what is known as Dhank Jagir, which was a Jagir under the Gondal State. That State integrated with State of Saurashtra and became part of the territory of the State of Saurashtra. The State of Saurashtra after it was formed immediately undertook a number of legislative measures for agrarian reform and one of such measures was the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordin...
Sureshchandra Vadilal Shah Vs. Shantilal Shankarlal and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-01-1966
Reported in: 1968CriLJ117; (1967)GLR290
N.G. Shelat, J.1. This application is directed against an order passed on 31.1.1966 by Mr. R.N. Desai, Judicial Magistrate, First Glass, Palanpur in Criminal Case No. 613 of 1965 whereby the applicant-accused came to be committed under Section 213 of the Criminal P.C., to the Court of Session at Palanpur in respect of the charges levelled against him under Sections 366, 497 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The opponent No. 1 was married with one Jayahen about 8 or 9 years ago, and they have four children. The accused-applicant was living in the same mohalla in Palanpur, where they were living, and it appears that the accused developed some intimacy with Jayaben. He used to visit her house, even during the absence of her husband, in spite of his being asked not to visit his house. On the evening of 29.7.65, when he returned home from his shop, he did not find his wife, and on inquiry he learnt about the opponent No. 1 having taken her away towards Udaipur side, by giving her false pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›