Gujarat Court March 1968 Judgments
Ranchhodbhai Jethabhai Vs. Parshottam Galabhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-29-1968
Reported in: (1969)10GLR1
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. These two petitions involve an identical question of law and the facts giving rise to the two petitions are also identical, the only difference being that one relates to the election of Sarpanch while the other relates to the election of Upa-Sarpanch of Kava Gram Panchayat. The first meeting of the Kava Gram panchayat for election of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch was convened at 9-00 a.m. on 1st July 1967. Two nomination papers, one by the petitioner in Petition No. 168 of 1968 for election as Sarpanch and the other by the petitioner in Petition No. 164 of 1968 for election as Upa-Sarpanch, were delivered to the Presiding Officer at 7-00 A.M. on the date of the meeting. So also, two nomination papers, one by first respondent in Petition No. 168 of 1968 for election as Sarpanch and the other by the first respondent in Petition No. 164 of 1968 for election as Upa-Sarpanch, were delivered to the Presiding Officer on the same day but at 7-55 A.M. When the meeting was held...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Pagi Bhurabhai Rumalbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-27-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Guj260
N.K. Vakil, J. 1. The only point involved in this second appeal is whether reasonable opportunity to be given to a Government Servant under Article 311(2) of the Constitution in a Departmental Inquiry includes a right of personal hearing at the stage of appeal.2. The respondent had joined the Police Department on 18th of April 1945 and, at the relevant date, he was working as a Police Head Constable. He was charged with criminal trespass into the compound of the P. S. I. Dohad (Rural) on the night between the 25th and 26th of November 1959. Thereafter a preliminary inquiry was held and subsequently a departmental inquiry was held as a result of which the plaintiff was dismissed from service by the Order of the D.S.P. dated 22nd of July 1960. The respondent then filed an appeal before the D.I.G. and it is the case of the respondent that he had requested the D.I.G, to give a personal hearing to him but that request was rejected by the D.I.G. and the appeal was dismissed on the 31st of De...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Ratnabhai Ukabhai Vs. Rupjibhai Fuljibhai Valvi and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-1968
Reported in: (1968)9GLR847
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. This petition raises a short question whether the Civil Judge (Junior Division) has jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, to entertain an application challenging the validity of co-optation of a member of a Taluka Panchayat. The preliminary meeting of the Nizar Taluka Panchayat for co-optation of members under Section 14 Sub-section (1) Part C was held on 22nd February 1968 and at that meeting the petitioner was chosen as a co-opted member. The first respondent who was the defeated rival candidate thereupon preferred an application before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vyara, challenging the co-optation of the petitioner on certain grounds which it is not necessary to set out for the purpose of the present petition. Immediately after filing the application which was numbered Miscellaneous Election Petition No. 3 of 1968, the first respondent applied to the learned Civil Judge for interim relief and on that application, an ex parte o...
Tag this Judgment!Manharlal Manilal Shah Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-25-1968
Reported in: [1969]39CompCas641(Guj); (1969)GLR180; (1969)GLR218
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision of this court given on 18th June, 1968, in O.J. Appeal No. 2 of 1968 ([1968] 38 Comp. Cas. 643). The applicant seeks leave to appeal under article 133(a), clauses (b) and (c) of the Constitution, and the question is whether he is entitled to leave under either of these two clauses. The applicant is a creditor of a company called Rajratna Naranbhai Mills Company Ltd. By an order dated 26th July, 1967, the company was ordered to be compulsorily would up and the official liquidator was appointed liquidator of the company. The company owned a textile mill and it, therefore, became necessary in the winding up, for realising the assets of the company, to sell the land, buildings, plant machinery, stores and other assets comparised in the textile mill. The official liquidator after obtaining the direction of the company judge advertised sale of the assets of the company and pursuant to the...
Tag this Judgment!Jhalawar Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. Wadhwan City Municipality ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-21-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Guj40; (1969)GLR225
A.D. Desai, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to the rate at which the electricity was to be supplied to the respondent in respect of the street lights and water works motors. The facts according to the plaintiffs are that formerly there was a company which was known as Wadhwan State Electric Power Distributing Company, and it held a licence under Indian Electricity Act for supplying electric energy within the limits of Wadhwan City. The respondent Municipality entered into agreements with the said Company for the supply of electric energy to its water works motors as well as street lights. The agreements with respect to supply of electric energy to water works and the street lights were entered on September 28, 1943. The said Company was a partnership firm of which the former Wadhwan State and one Natvarlal Dhanjibhai Mehta were partners, On the integration of the former Wadhwan State and the formation of United State of Saurashtra, the State of Saurashtra became a partner in th...
Tag this Judgment!Ganibhai Kusalbhai and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Guj88
ORDERA.R. Bakshi, J.1. These are two petitions challenging the order passed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 88D of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Since both these petitions involve a similar question, they were heard together and this judgment will cover the subject matter of both the petitions.2. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 901 of 1963 is the owner of certain lands situated at Vadod in the Anand Taluka and he made an application before the Mamlatdar, Anand, under Section 88C of the Act for the grant of an exemption certificate and a certificate dated 19th October 1959 was granted to him under that section by the Tenancy Aval Karkun of Anand. That certificate granted under Section 88C was revoked by an order dated January 1963 passed by the Under Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Revenue and Agriculture Department, by virtue of the powers under...
Tag this Judgment!Lalmiya Sulamhusen and ors. Vs. Ahmed Shaikh Dawood and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Guj166; (1969)GLR496
V.R. Shah, J.1. The appellants in this appeal are original defendants-judgment-debtors and the respondents are original plaintiffs-decree-holders. The plaintiffs obtained a decree for an amount of Rs. 2,33,000/- and odd against the defendants and they have filed Regular Darkhast No. 74 of 1965 to execute that decree by attachment and sale of the Immovable properties belonging to the judgment-debtors. The judgment-debtors have preferred an appeal being First Appeal No. 236 of 1965 and therein they applied for stay of execution of the decree. This Court imposed certain conditions on which the stay was granted, but the conditions have not been fulfilled and the ultimate result is that stay has been refused. In the execution proceedings before the trial Court a stage has been reached where sale of immovable properties has been ordered and a proclamation of sale is already issued. At this stage, the judgment-debtors preferred an application under Order 41. Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Proced...
Tag this Judgment!Ganibhai Musabhai Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-1968
Reported in: (1969)10GLR274
A.R. Bakshi, J.1. These are two petitions challenging the order passed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 88D of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Since both these petitions involve a similar question, they were heard together and this judgment will cover the subject matter of both the petitions.2. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 901 of 1963 is the owner of certain lands situated at Vadod in the Anand Taluka and he made an application before the Mamlatdar, Anand, under Section 88C of the Act for the grant of an exemption certificate and a certificate dated 19th October 1959 was granted to him under that section by the Tenancy Aval Karkun of Anand. That certificate granted under Section 88C was revoked by an order dated January 1963 passed by the Under Secretary to the Government of Gujarat. Revenue and Agriculture Department, by virtue of the powers under Sub-...
Tag this Judgment!Ambalal @ Ajaykumar Dwarkadas AmIn Vs. Khembai D/O. Dhramabhai Mulcham ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-1968
Reported in: (1969)10GLR390
N.G. Shelat, J.1. The facts giving rise to this application, broadly stated, are that the opponent No. 1 Bai Khembai had filed an application for claiming maintenance allowance against her husband the applicant, under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the Court of the Chief City Magistrate, Ahmedabad inter alia alleging that her husband has contracted remarriage with one Bai Gita and has consequently deserted her. He has not been maintaining her and that therefore, she be awarded Rs. 500/- per month by way of maintenance allowance from her husband.2. Her husband, the applicant before this Court, resisted the same inter alia contending that he has neither deserted nor driven out from his house as alleged. She had gone away of her own accord to her parents' place and that, therefore, a divorce deed dated 31-7-65 was executed between them. She was therefore, no longer his wife and thus was not entitled to claim any maintenance allowance from him.3. When the matter came up for...
Tag this Judgment!Tejsingh Pratapsingh Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-1968
Reported in: 1969CriLJ1286
B.J. Divan, J.1. This application has been filed under the provisions of Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 439, or. P. C The petitioner has prayed that by a Writ of certiorari or by a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or by any other Writ, direction or order, the judgment and order of conviction and sentences recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1966 on May 20, 1966, in so far as the said order of conviction and sentence affects the petitioner, sentencing the petitioner to suffer R.L for five years on each flaunt under Section 395 and Section 394, I.P.C., be quashed and set aside and by such Writ, direction or order, the petitioner may be ordered to be acquitted and be ordered to be set at liberty forthwith. The petitioner has also prayed for an order for bail pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are rather peculiar. The petitioner and five ot...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »