Gujarat Court December 1968 Judgments
Maganlal Shivlal Vs. Memon Daudbhai Mithabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-1968
Reported in: (1969)10GLR336
V.R. Shah, J.1. These two Second Appeals arise out of the two suits brought by the respondent in each appeal to recover possession of certain shops from the appellant under the provisions of Section 13(1)(h) of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Saurashtra Act'). The appellant is in possession of two shops in he carries on business and he is also in possession of one shop where he stores coal. These shops originally belonged to one Popatlal and his two brothers. The respondent plaintiff purchased the whole building in which these shops are situate by two different sale-deeds, paying aggregate sale price of Rs. 55,000/-. One sale deed was executed on 31-3-1958; while the other was executed on 1-11-1958. In respect of the two shops in which the appellant-defendant carries on business, the respondent filed Civil Suit No. 360 of 1958 on 27-10 1958; while in respect of the shop in which coal is stored by the appellant, the respondent filed Civil Suit No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Chitranjan Manilal Shah Vs. Mane Patil and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-11-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Guj67; (1970)0GLR273
ORDER1. The petitioner Chitranjan Manilal Shah challenges in this petition the appellate order passed by respondent No. 2 Director of Civil Supplies, on 29th November 1963, who confirmed the order passed by the Collector on 6th August 1963 cancelling the fair price shop authorisation of the petitioner and forfeiting the full amount of his deposit on the ground that he had illegally disposed of rice from the approved shop and this act amounted to serious misconduct.2. The petitioner's case is that the Gujarat Foodgrains Dealers licensing Order, 1963, issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, he is a licensed dealer. Under a subsequent order known as the Imported Foodgrains (Prohibition of Unauthorised Sale) Order, 1958, issued on 1st November 1958 by reason of clause 3 thereof, no person other than the authorised dealer could sell or store or offer for sale imported foodgrains in any quantity. Authorised dealer was also defined under clause 2(a) as a dealer authoris...
Tag this Judgment!Suvarnabahen Vs. Rashmikant Chinubhai Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-11-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Guj43; (1969)GLR661
1. The appellant is the wife of the respondent. Her petition for nullity of her marriage with the respondent on the ground set out in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called as the Act) namely that the respondent was impotent at the time of marriage and continued to be so until the institution of the proceedings has been dismissed by the Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. She has come in appeal. 2. According to the averments in the petition, which averments have not been controverted by the respondent by pleadings as he has chosen to remain absent, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 8th May, 1960 and the appellant went to reside with the respondent a month after that date. The appellant avers that after she went to reside with the respondent to fulfil the physical obligations of marriage, the respondent avoided to do so on the ground that he was not keeping well. The appellant states that be...
Tag this Judgment!Poonekar (V.L.) Vs. Collector of Central Excise (L.S. Kaul), Baroda an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-10-1968
Reported in: (1969)GLR136; (1970)ILLJ408Guj
1. The petitioner, Central Excises Inspector, challenges in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the order of respondent 1, Collector, Central Excise, dated 7 November, 1951, which confirms the petitioner with effect form 3 March, 1956 but refuses to confirm him form the earlier date, i.e., 1 October, 1951, which according to the petitioner was the due date on which the vacancy arose in which he should have been confirmed. The petitioner was originally appointed as a tobacco inspector in the former Baroda State on 1 March, 1945 in the grade of Rs. 80 to 110. On 1 April, 1948 he was promoted as a senior grade inspector. The petitioner was not made permanent during the former Baroda State regime and had no line on any substantive post. On the merger of the Baroda State on 1 May, 1994 the petitioner was absorbed as the Inspector of Central Excise from 1 May, 1949. He was given seniority from 3 july 1946 on the basis of the orders of seniority and as per the provisional list of...
Tag this Judgment!V.L. Poonekar Vs. L.S. Kaul Collector, Central Excice and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-10-1968
Reported in: (1969)10GLR136
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner, Central Excise Inspector, challenges in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the order of respondent No. 1, Collector, Central Excise, dated 7th November 1959, which confirms the petitioner with effect from 3rd March 1956 but refuses to confirm him from the earlier date i.e. 1st October 1951, which according to the petitioner was the due date on which the vacancy arose in which he should have been confirmed. The petitioner was originally appointed as a Tobacco Inspector in the former Baroda State on 1st March 1945 In the grade of Rs. 80 to 110. On 1st April 1948 he was promoted as a senior grade inspector. The petitioner was not made permanent during the former Baroda State regime and had no lien on any substantive post. On the merger of the Baroda State on 1st May 1949 the petitioner was absorbed as the Inspector of Central Excise from 1st May 1949. He was given seniority from 3rd July 1946 on the basis of the orders of seniority and as ...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Jadav D/O Naginlal Amtharam Vs. Durlabh Ranchhod and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-10-1968
Reported in: (1969)10GLR727
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. This petition is directed against an order dated 24th June 1966 passed by the State Government under Section 88D Sub-section (1) Clause (iv) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) cancelling with effect from the date of the said order a certificate of exemption granted to the petitionary under Section 88C in respect of four survey numbers, namely 505/4, 260/1, 260/2 and 708 situate in village Sajod, Taluka Ankleshwar District Broach. The said four survey numbers belong to the petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are tenants of the petitioner in respect of the said four survey numbers. The petitioner claiming that the said four survey numbers did not exceed an economic holding and the total annual income of the petitioner including the rent of the said four survey numbers did not exceed Rs. 1500/-, applied to the Mamlatdar for a certificate of exemption under Section 88C and the Mamlatdar on being sat...
Tag this Judgment!Maganlal Narandas Thakkar and anr. Vs. Arjan Bhanji Kanbi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-10-1968
Reported in: (1969)10GLR837
V.R. Shah, J.1. This second appeal arises out of Civil Suit No. 341 of 1960 wherein the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Veraval-Malia, has passed a passed a decree for possession of the suit premises in favour of the plaintiff. An appeal was taken to the District Court at Junagadh, being Appeal No. 20 of 1962, but the appeal has been dismissed. The appellants-original defendants have, therefore, brought this second appeal to this Court.2. The facts necessary to understand the point of law involved in this appeal are as follows:The suit premises consist of a house. This house belonged to one Tribhovandas Haridas and it has been purchassed by the plaintiff on 25-7-1960. The original tenant In the premises was Narandas Lavji, who took it on lease from Haridas sometime round about 1941. Narandas Lavji died and present appellant No. 2 is his widow and the appellant No. 1 is his son. The plaintiff brought this suit against the appellants-defendants for possession of the suit premises, on two ...
Tag this Judgment!Pirubhai Ramjubhai Vs. Trikamlal Nanjibhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Guj285; (1969)GLR747
ORDERAkbar S. Sarela, J.1. In a suit by the respondent as landlord against the petitioner as tenant for eviction of the petitioner from the leased premises on the ground of arrears of rent, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Surendranagar, has, by an order dated 20-11-1907, made under Section 11(4) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act') directed that the petitioner shall not be entitled to appear in and defend the suit henceforth unless otherwise ordered. Against that order the petitioner went in revision to the District Court, Surendranagar. The learned District Judge, by his order dated 18-7-1968, dismissed that revision application, thereby upholding the order passed by the learned trial Judge. Against the order of the District Judge, the petitioner has come in revision to this Court.2. The material facts are not in dispute. On the date the suit was filed the petitioner was alleged to be in arrears of rent and mesne...
Tag this Judgment!Shivkumar Atmaram Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-06-1968
Reported in: (1970)11GLR281
N.G. Shelat, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed on 5th November 1966 by Mr. N.R. Tatia, City Magistrate, 5th Court, Ahmedabad, in Summary Case No. 834 of 1966, whereby while the accused Nos. 2 and 3 came to be acquitted, the accused No. 1, appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month for an offence punishable under Section 379, Indian Penal Code.2. The facts of the case are quite simple. One Nanalal Govindji owned a Raleigh Cycle having a Frame No. R/34493/D. He had purchased it from Royal Cycle Importing Co. in Ahmedabad on 10th December 1961 for a sum of Rs. 273/-. On 4th July 1964, while going to his office at Sachivalaya in Ahmedabad, he had left his cycle at the Cycle Stand. When he left the office in the evening and went to the Cycle Stand, he found his cycle missing. He made enquiries in respect of his cycle at several places for...
Tag this Judgment!Od Zaverbhai Goberbhai Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Guj340; (1969)GLR492
ORDERJ.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner-tenant has in this petition challenged the order of the State Government, dated 18-6-64 by which the State has under Section 88D(1)(iv) refused to cancel the certificate granted to respondent No. 2 on the ground that it was not satisfied that the annual income of respondent No. 2 landlord exceeded Rs. 1500/-. The petitioner applied on 5-9-63 to the State Government for cancelling respondent No. 2's certificate on the ground that the respondent No. 2 was earning an income of Rs. 100/- by way of salary being a municipal servant and so, the annual income was of Rs. 1200/- by way of salary. He also realised rent of Rs. 800/- per month (sic?) from the tenant Parsottamdas Maganlal of his house which was wrongly assessed in the municipal record at only Rs. 420/-. Besides, the rent of the said land was Rs. 157/-. On these grounds the petitioner claimed cancellation of the exemption certificate as respondent No. 2's income exceeded Rs. 1500/-. When this inqu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »