Gujarat Court November 1968 Judgments
Mafatlal Khodidas Vs. Girdharilal Dhurabhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-26-1968
Reported in: (1970)11GLR186
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner tenant has in these two petitions challenged the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal disposing of his revision applications in the two proceedings under Sections 32P and 32G respectively by the common order, dated December 9, 1963. As both the petitions involve common questions of law and facts they are disposed of by this common order.2. The Lands Tribunal instituted an inquiry under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', and in pursuance of the notice issued, the petitioner appeared on July 14, 1959. The matter was adjourned to August 3, 1959, when it was further adjourned to October 6, 1959. On that day, the parties were absent and the Lands Tribunal recorded the statement of the person and kept the matter for orders. On October 15, 1959, the Lands Tribunal made a declaration under Section 32G (3) that the tenant was not willing to purchase the land and that the purchase was ineffect...
Tag this Judgment!Manilal Bhulabhai Solanki Vs. R. Parthsarthi Collector of Bulsar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-26-1968
Reported in: (1969)10GLR687
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. These two petitions challenge an order of requisition dated 11th July 1967 issued by the Collector of Bulsar purporting to requisition a building known as 'Mohan Smruti' situate on Mahatma Gandhi Road within the municipal limits of Balsar, in exercise of the power conferred under Section 6 Sub-section (4) Clause (a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. The petitioners in these two petitions and three other persons carried on business as partners in the firm name and style of Messrs. Dinesh, Mukesh & Company (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner firm). The petitioner firm started constructing a building called 'Mohan Smruti' on Mahatma Gandhi Road within the municipal limits of Bulsar. When the construction of the building was about to be completed, there were negotiations between Manilal Bhulabhal Solanki, petitioner in Petition No. 1095 of 1967, and the Life Insurance Corporation for letting out the building to the Life Insurance Corporation. Whilst the...
Tag this Judgment!Khubchandani Meherchand K. Vs. Hiralal Dayalal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-26-1968
Reported in: (1970)11GLR66
A.D. Desai, J.1. The appellant was a tenant of the respondent in respect of the suit premises. The respondent-plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 85 of 1964 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Visavadar, to recover possession of the suit premises on the ground that he required the suit premises for his bona fide and reasonable use. It was the case cf the plaintiff that he purchased the suit premises from the auction purchaser by a registered sale deed dated September 19, 1962 for Rs. 18000/-, that he had a large family and hence he purchased the suit premises for his personal occupation. The defendant contended that the plaintiff did not require the suit premises bona fide and reasonably for his personal use and greater hardship would be caused to him if a decree of eviction was to be passed against him. In the trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, an issue was raised whether the suit was maintainable under Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation...
Tag this Judgment!Petlad Bulakhidas Mills Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-22-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Guj59; (1970)0GLR330
1. The plaintiff-appellant sued the respondent-defendants, the Union of India and the Western Railway, for recovery of Rs. 1,680.06 nPs. The plaintiff-appellant is the Petlad Bulakhidas Mills Co. Ltd., Petlad. It filed a Civil Suit NO. 213 of 1959 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Petlad to recover the aforesaid amount.2. The undisputed facts in that suit are as under:-3. The plaintiff had entered into a contract for a railway siding at Petlad for their mills with the then B.B. & C.I. Railway Company Administration. That agreement is Ex. 33, dated 20-1-1922. The said agreement was continued when the Union of India took over the Administration of all the Indian Railways. By a letter, dated 3rd Sept., 1955. Ex. 21, the General Manager of the Respondent No. 2, Railway, intimated to the plaintiff that the agreement regarding siding facilites of the plaintiff would be terminated after six months from 1st October, 1955 if the plaintiff did not agree to revised rates as propos...
Tag this Judgment!Shantilal Ratanji Desai and anr. Vs. Mangubhai Chhotubhai Desai and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-20-1968
Reported in: (1969)10GLR500
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioners-landlords challenge in this petition the order of the Revenue Tribunal, dated 19th November 1963 holding that Section 43A(1)(b) of the Tenancy Act exempting the lands from Sections 32 to 32R was not attracted in the case of lands in question as the lands were not fruit growing lands. The Tribunal, therefore, reversed the finding of the two lower authorities which was based on an agreement, dated 15th April 1956 at Annexure 'A' as to the purpose of letting and held that the opponent No. 1 was entitled to purchase these lands under Section 32 The Tribunal, therefore, reminded the matter to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal for determining the purchase price under Section 32G. It is this order which is challenged in this petition2. Section 43A(1)(b) in terms provides that the provisions of 32 to 32R were not applicable to leases of lands granted to any bodies or persons other than those mentioned in Clause (a) for growing of fruits. Therefore, this exemption...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanlal Govindram Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-20-1968
Reported in: (1970)11GLR1
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. These are two groups of petitions involving a common question as to the validity of Section 437A of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949; one group consisting of Petitions Nos. 1124 of 1966, 1480 of 1966, 1514 of 1967, 81 of 1967, 82 of 1967, 1567 of 1967, 1568 of 1967 to 1574 of 1967, 1578 of 1967, 489 of 1968 to 493 of 1968, 472 of 1967, 473 of 1967, 896 of 1967 and 1113 of 1967 concerns Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, while the other consisting of Petitions Nos. 141 of 1967, 178 of 1967 to 202 of 1967, 250 of 1967, 251 of 1967 and 222 of 1967 to 240 of 1967, concerns Baroda Municipal Corporation. The facts giving rise to the petitions in each respective group are identical and we will therefore state the facts of Petition No. 1124 of 1966 as typical of the petitions in the first group and the facts of Petition No. 141 of 1967 as typical of the petitions in the second group.2. Petition No. 1124 of 1966: The petitioner was at all material times...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Chanchalben (Widow of Deceased Bhikhabhai Kalandas) Vs. Burjorji D ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-18-1968
Reported in: 1970ACJ440; (1970)0GLR71; (1969)IILLJ357Guj
1. One Bhikhabhi Kalandas, a workman working at and doing the work of feeding the huller with paddy in the flour mills of the respondent Burjorji Dinshawji Sethna at Ankleshwar received injuries on 8 December, 1963 in an accident arising out of an in the course of his employment. He died on the same day as a result of the injuries so received. His widow who is the appellant here made an application to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (herein-after referred to as the Commissioner) under S. 22 read with S. 19 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for an order for compensation under the Act. The Commissioner held her to be entitled under the provisions of the Act to compensation of Rs. 3,000 but has awarded Rs. 1,500 by deducting a sum of Rs. 1,500 earlier paid by deducting a sum of Rs. 1,500 earlier paid by the respondent under circumstances to be presently mentioned. The appellant has come to this Court in appeal under S. 30 of the Act,...
Tag this Judgment!Khambhalia Municipality Vs. Chunilal Bhagwanji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-16-1968
Reported in: (1970)11GLR87
B.R. Sompura, J.1. The appellant-defendant Khambhalia Municipality, has filed the present appeal against the decree of eviction passed by the learned District Judge at Jamnagar in Civil Appeal No. 256/62, by which he reversed the decree of dismissal of the suit, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Khambhalia in Civil Suit No. 55 of 1961.2. An interesting question, whether Part II of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act, applies to premises taken on lease by a municipality or not, has arisen in this appeal. The plaintiff filed the suit claiming that the defendant municipality had taken on rent the suit premises for its office and as the tenancy has been duly terminated by a notice dated 24th July 1961, the defendant should be asked to hand over the possession of the suit premises. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the premises were rented by the municipality for its office and so the provisions of the Act would not apply to the s...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Shah Veljibhai Motichand, Lunawada
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-12-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC288(Guj)
Mehta, J.1. The short question which has been referred to us is :- 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the sale of corrugated sheets by the opponent-firm was covered by entry 80 of Schedule B or entry 15 of Schedule B to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, prior to its amendment by Bombay Act 16 of 1957 ?' 2. The short facts which have given rise to this reference are :- The opponent-firm is a registered dealer dealing in iron and steel, gold and silver, vegetable ghee, corrugated iron sheets etc. It was assessed according to best judgment for the period from 1st April, 1956, to 31st March, 1957, by an order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Godhra, on 30th June, 1962. The assessee appealed to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax which was dismissed and its revision was only partially allowed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. The Deputy Commissioner held that entry 15 of Schedule B relating to iron and steel only included primary products of the rolling mill...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax, Gujarat, Ahmedabad Vs. Anil Co-operative Cr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-11-1968
Reported in: [1969]24STC180(Guj)
Divan, J. 1. In this reference under section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the following two questions have been referred by the Tribunal to this Court :- '(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in respect of the sales effected by the canteen during the periods from 16th February, 1960 to 30th June, 1960, 1st July, 1960 to 30th June, 1961, 1st July, 1961 to 30th June, 1962 and 1st July, 1962 to 30th June, 1963, the opponent-society is a dealer within the meaning of the definition of the term 'dealer' contained in clause (11) of section 2 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (2) If the answer to question No. (1) is in the negative, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the opponent-society would still be liable to pay tax during the period it holds registration certificate by virtue of sub-section (5-A) of section 22 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ' 2. We may point out that in question No. (1), the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »