Gujarat Court September 1967 Judgments
Dr. Chhotalal Jivabhai Patel Vs. Vadilal Lallubhai Mehta and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-29-1967
Reported in: (1971)12GLR850
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. These appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are directed against two orders passed by N.G. Shelat, J. in Election Petition No. 18 of 1967. The facts giving rise to these appeals are common and for the most part undisputed and they may be briefly stated as follows.2. On 13th January 1967 the Governor of Gujarat issued a Notification under Section 15(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) calling upon all Assembly Constituencies in the State of Gujarat to elect members to the Legislative Assembly. The dates for various stages of the election were thereafter fixed by the election Commission by a Notification issued under Section 30 and a public notice was issued under Section 31 by the Retirement', Officer inviting nominations of candidates for the election. Nomination papers for the election from the Daskroi Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 68 were accordingly filed by nine candidates. But out of them seve...
Tag this Judgment!Khoja Ahmadali Haji Jerajbhai and anr. Vs. HusseIn Kasu Nangiya
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-29-1967
Reported in: (1968)9GLR1087
V.B. Raju, J.1. In this revision application, the question relates to the order of the Assistant Judge of Jamnagar ordering that the document, Ex. 3/1, upon which the suit was based is liable to stamp duty of Rs. 75/- together with penalty of Rs. 750/-. He came to this conclusion, because he held that it was a bond. If this conclusion is incorrect, it would be a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction, because the whole suit is basedupon Ex. 3/1. The bond is defined in Section 2(c) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958.2. No doubt, this is an inclusive definition, but before a document can become a bond, a person executing the document must oblige himself to pay money or deliver grain or agricultural produce to another. There must be an obligation. To enter into an agreement for the purchase of a house or a ship would not amount to a bond unless there is a clear obligation as stated above. To say that if certain amount of money is not paid the transaction would become void or can...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat and anr. Vs. Labour Court, Rajkot (P.R. Mankad) and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-1967
Reported in: (1968)0GLR815; (1968)ILLJ148Guj
Bakshi, J. 1. This is an application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality of the order passed by the labour court, Rajkot, in Recovery Application No. 122 of 1963. Petitioner 1 is the State of Gujarat and petitioner 2 is the Port Officer, Okha. Respondent 1 is the presiding officer of the labour court at Rajkot and respondent 3 Bholu Natha who served as the first engine-driver, flotilla section at Okha port and who made to retire by the Okha Port Administration as from 1 August, 1961. This led to an application by respondent 3 under S. 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act which was decided by the labour court at Rajkot in favour of respondent 3 and it is that order of the labour court the validity of which has been challenged in these proceedings before us. 2. A few facts as they appear in the petition and on which the petition is based may be briefly stated. The area comprising the Port of Okha was formerly under the administration of the former ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal Nathubhai and ors. Vs. R.M. Desai Development Commissioner, S ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-1967
Reported in: (1968)9GLR991
N.K. Vakil, J.1. This petition challenges the order of the Development Commissioner, Gujarat State, dated the 9th of November 1966 whereby the Chalala Gram Panchayat of District Amreli had been superseded for a period of two years. The said order is made by the Development Commissioner in the purported exercise of the powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 297 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The first election of the Chalala Gram Panchayat (hereafter referred to as 'the Panchayat') was held in 1964 and it originally consisted of fifteen elected members. One Nagjibhai Jivraj was elected as the Sarpanch. It appears that he was later disqualified and thereafter petitioner No. 1 was the Sarpanch of the said Panchayat and the other petitioners were the sitting members thereof. It is the allegation of the petitioners that there are two major political groups in the village of Chalala. One is the Nagrik Mandal of which the petitioners are the mem...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ahmedabad (D.C. Choowala) and anr. V ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-1967
Reported in: 1969CriLJ322; (1968)0GLR890; (1968)IILLJ630Guj
1. This is a reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural at Narol, Sri D. J. Dave, under S. 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, recommending that the order, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Case, Narol, dated 14 September, 1966, in a Criminal Case No. 1184 of 1966, issuing the process, be quashed and the opponent-accused be acquitted. 2. The facts leading rise to this reference, are briefly stated as under. Opponent 1 is Gujarat Paper Mills Ltd. Barejadi Opponent 2 is a managing director of the said mills and opponent 3 is a works manager of the said mills. The industrial tribunal had given an award in regard to a dispute between opponent 1 and the workmen employed by it on 23 October, 1961. The said mills, being dissatisfied with that award, had filed appeals in the Supreme Court of India. The appeals filed were Civil Appeals Nor. 943 and 944 of 1964, and on account of the settlement, the award came to be modified by the Supreme Court on 17...
Tag this Judgment!Ambica Mills Ltd., No. 2, Ahmedabad Vs. Second Labour Court [Master (D ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-1967
Reported in: [1968(16)FLR46]; (1967)IILLJ800Guj
Desai, J.1. These petitions are filed under Art. 227 of the constitution of India. The petitioner in both the petitions is a registered company under the Companies Act and carrying on business of manufacturing cotton cloth and yarn in the City of Ahmedabad. Respondent 1 in both the petitions is presiding officer, second labour court at Ahmedabad. The other respondents to the petitions are the employees of the petitioner. Respondents 2 to 6 in Special Civil Application No. 458 of 1966 filed an Application No. 88 of 1965 under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the Act) alleging that there was an agreement between the Millowners' Association and the Textile Labour Association, Ahmedabad, dated June 22, 1949, in respect of the wages and scale of pay for the clerks in textile mills at Ahmedabad. The said agreement was also registered under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and is binding on the petitioner. The said agreement provided for a pay-...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmidas Damodardas Vs. L. Chandrabhan and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-13-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Guj23; (1969)GLR93
ORDERJ.B. Mehta, J.1. This revision application raises an interesting question as to whether an ex parte decree passed by a Court in British India could be executed by the Courts in the territory in the Indian States which at the time of execution have merged in the territories of India. This application was originally filed as a second appeal as the appeal against the trial Court's order rejecting the contention of the judgment-debtor that such a decree was a nullity was summarily dismissed by the first appellate Court.2. The short facts which have given rise to this application are as under :--The decree-holder, Suresh Bangles Store through the partner L. Chandrabhan had obtained a decree in the Small Cause Court at Agra, against the two Judgment-debtors Laxmandas Damodardas and Laxmidas Damodardas, in Civil Suit No. 488 of 1949. The decree was kept alive and the last execution was applied and disposed of on 27-6-58. The decree-holder thereafter sought execution of the said decree af...
Tag this Judgment!Chamar Jivabhai Bechardas and anr. Vs. Chamar Harijan Kesharbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-1967
Reported in: (1968)9GLR727
V.B. Raju, J.1. In this revision, the only contention urged is that for the purpose of jurisdiction, the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chanasma, has valued the suit claim at Rs. 8,000/- and odd on the allegation of the plaintiff that he is entitled to claim one-half share and has, therefore, held that the Civil Judge, Junior Division had jurisdiction. It is contended that the Junior Division Judge has no jurisdiction, but only the Senior Division Judge, because the suit half share claimed by the plaintiff must have been valued at such higher amount. The property in which half share is claimed consists of land, houses and Wada. The dispute in revision relates only to the valuation of the land. On this point, the learned Judge has observed in para 5 of his judgment as follows:For the purpose of all the three preliminary issuses, it is necessary to find out and determine the market value of the suit properties. For the purpose of the agricultural lands Section 6(5)(a) of the Bombay Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Dawood Mahomed Pathan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-01-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Guj79
V.R. Shah, J. 1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises out of the decision of this Court (Divan, J.) in First Appeal No. 163 of 1964 which was filed against the decision of Mr. R.C. Shelat, Principal Judge, City Civil Court (as he then was), in City Civil Suit No. 2239 of 1961. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:The original plaintiff who is the appellant before us as well as in the First Appeal before Divan, J., brought this suit against the Union of India and the State of Gujarat, the two respondents before us, on August 17, 1961 for a declaration that he is a citizen of India and that he has not lost or abandoned his Indian citizenship and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their servants from prosecuting and/or deporting him from India. The plaintiff's father was born at the village of Tanda in Hazara District. This District of Hazara was a part of British India upto the coming into operation of the Independence Act of 1947. T...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›