Gujarat Court April 1968 Judgments
State of Gujarat Vs. Vora SaifuddIn Akbarali and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-30-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Guj195; 1969CriLJ902; (1969)GLR646
ORDERN.G. Shelat, J.1. The facts giving rise to this reference, broadly stated, are that one Patel Laljibhai Somabhai of village Juval Rupavati, filed Civil Suit No. 11 of 1964 in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge (J. D.) at Dholka, against Vora Safakathusein Yusufali, the complainant in the present case, and his brother Vora Ahmedhussain Yusufali for recovering a sum of Rs. 2000 on the basis of a cheque dated 22-11-03 drawn in the name of self under the signature of the complainant Vora Safakathussain Yusufali Lakdawala on the Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd.. Ahmedabad Branch. In that suit, the defence of the complainant and his brother Vora Ahmedhussain Yusufali was that the cheque in question and certain coupons which were produced and relied upon in that suit were forged and a false suit in collusion with the accused in this case was filed. That suit came to be dismissed on 30-1-1965 by Shri R. K. Atodaria, Joint Civil Judge (J. D.) Dholka. Thereafter on 16-11-1965 the co...
Tag this Judgment!Harji Hira Rabari Vs. E.N. Renison Dy. Comm. of Police and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-25-1968
Reported in: (1969)10GLR283
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. The petitioner in this petition challenges an order of externment passed against him under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The order of externment was preceded by a show cause notice under Section 59 and the allegations made against the petitioner on the basis of which he was sought to be externed were set out in the show cause notice as under:It is alleged against you that you are a dangerous and desperate man and constantly indulge in acts involving force and violence. You terrorise the residents and persons frequenting the localities known as Sarangpur, Sarangpur Dolatkhana, Sarangpur Chakla, Sarangpur Darwaja, Madalpur, V.S. Hospital areas, Ellis Bridge and round about the areas under the limits of Kalupur and Ellis Bridge Police Station. Since January 1967 till today you are engaged in the commission of following acts in the localities shown below:(1) You rob and extort money at the point of Rampuri knife and un...
Tag this Judgment!ZarIn Rustomji Munshi Vs. Santubhai Manibhai Patel and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-1968
Reported in: (1969)GLR710
ORDERA.S. Sarela, J. 1. The Special Civil Application No. 261/67 and the Civil Revision Application No. 227/67 are both concerned with a claim arising out of the same accident caused by a motor vehicle and as they raise identical questions and have been argued together they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The material facts are these. One Miss Zarin Rustomji Munshi is the petitioner in both the cases. She was studying in M. Sayajirao University, Baroda, when while she was proceeding on the university road, also known as the National Highway Road, on her bycycle on 6-2-1963 at about 8.50 A. M. she was knocked down by a motor truck No, GTA 5429. That truck was driven by one Santubhai Manibhai Patel who is respondent No. 1 in both the cases. The truck belonged to one Bhupendra Chunilal Patel who is respondent No. 2 in both the cases. Respondent No. 3 in the special civil application is the Universal Fire and General Insurance Company. That Company is not made a party to the...
Tag this Judgment!Nanji Pancha Vs. Daulal Naraindas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-1968
Reported in: (1970)11GLR285
J.B. Mehta, J.1. This revision application has been referred to the Division Bench by my learned brother Thakor J. on 13th March 1968. This revision application was filed on 4th April 1964 against the order of the District Judge, Kutch, dated 23rd January 1964 by which he allowed the tenant's appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit for possession both on the ground of arrears of rent and subletting. The learned District Judge had confirmed the finding of the trial Court as regards the standard rent of the suit premises.2. The short facts which have given rise to this petition are as under: The suit shop is situated in Gandhidham. It was purchased on 13th September 1961 by the plaintiff for Rs. 6,000 and at that time the defendant-tenant was attorney to the plaintiff. The contractual rent was Rs. 35 per month. As the defendant was in arrears of rent, notice under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' wa...
Tag this Judgment!Qhuna Bhikha Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-1968
Reported in: (1969)10GLR331
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. These petitions are directed against two sets of notifications, one set consisting of a notification dated 29th June 1959 issued under Section 4 and a notification dated 23rd November 1960 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the other set consisting of a notification dated 25th July 1959 issued under Section 4 and a notification dated 12th May 1960 issued under Section 6 of that Act. These notifications affect various lands which belong to one or the other petitioner in these petitions and since identical questions of law arise in these petitions, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. The purpose for which the acquisition was made under the impugned notifications was described 'Low Income Group Housing Scheme near Bhaktinagar Station' and it is clear on the affidavits that this public purpose was to be executed by the Saurashtra Housing Board. It is also common ground between the parties that the Lo...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Vasanti Vs. Suryaprasad Ishvarlal Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Guj152; (1969)GLR571
V.R. Shah, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is the judgment-creditor and she filed an execution application to execute the decree. It has been dismissed by the executing Court on the ground that it is barred by limitation. It is against this order that this appeal has been brought by the judgment-creditor.2. At the time when this appeal was taken up for hearing, Mr. Zaveri, learned Advocate for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that an appeal from order cannot lie. but it should have been filed as a First Appeal. The learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. Shelat, agrees to this and both Advocates have no objection to this appeal being treated as First Appeal. I, therefore, direct that this appeal may be registered as First Appeal and I proceed to dispose it of on that basis.3. The appellant filed the suit for maintenance both past and future, as well as for a declaration of her rights to a share in the property. A compromise purshis was put by the parties before the Court...
Tag this Judgment!Ramji Popatbhai Patel and anr. Vs. Jamnadas Shah and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-1968
Reported in: (1969)10GLR164
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. This is a petition for an appropriate direction, order or writ to quash and set aside a notification dated 9th October 1959 issued by the Commissioner, Rajkot Division under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and a notification dated 8th May 1960 issued by the Commissioner, Rajkot Division under Section 6 of that Act in respect of survey No. 296 belonging to the petitioners. Purvey No. 296 admeasures 20 acres 29 gunthas and is situate on Kotharia Road in Rajkot. It appears that the Saurashtra Housing Board constituted under the Saurashtra Housing Board Act, 1954 required survey No. 296 for executing a low income group housing scheme and therefore the Commissioner, Rajkot Division issued a notification dated 9th October 1959 under Section 4 of the Act notifying that Survey No. 296 was likely to be needed for a public purpose, namely, low income group housing scheme on Kotharia Road. The petitioners lodged their objections under Section 5A Sub-section (1) a...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Joitaram Ganesh and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-1968
Reported in: (1969)10GLR431
J.B. Mehta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decision of our learned brother Raju, J. in Second Appeal No. 380 of 1962 by which our learned brother reversed the decrees of the two lower Courts on the ground that the decree in question was a nullity which could not be executed. The short facts which have given rise to this appeal are as under:2. It appears that the appellant-Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') had obtained a decree from the Mamlatdar's Court for possession of the two plots Nos. 769 and 772 situated in the City of Ahmedabad from the defendants who were tenants in respect of those two plots. The respondents thereafter filed a suit for injunction in the Civil Court for restraining the Corporation from taking possession of the said two plots in execution of the decree of the Mamlatdar's Court on the ground that the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') app...
Tag this Judgment!Testeels Ltd. Vs. Desai (N.M.) (Conciliation Officer) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-05-1968
Reported in: [1970(20)FLR121]; (1969)10GLR622; (1970)ILLJ210Guj
Bhagwati, C.J.1. This reference raise a very important question in the field of administrative law. The question is whether an administrative officer discharging quasi-judicial functions is bound to give reasons in support of the 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 S. 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 respondent 2 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 proviso to S. ...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Galal Ramshi Vs. Vrajlal Ichhashanker and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-05-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Guj159; (1969)GLR561
ORDERJ.M. Sheth, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the original defendant against the plaintiffs-opponents under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The opponents filed a Civil Suit No. 31 of 1967 in the Court of the Civil Judge. (J.D.) Talaja for recovery of possession of suit land from the petitioner. According to them, they are the owners of the suit land and are in possession of it. The petitioner obstructs their possession and has made an application in the Mamlatdar's Court to have it mutated to her name, claiming the land to be hers.2. The petitioner filed a written statement on 24th July, 1967 and denied the claim of the opponents and challenged the maintainability of the suit.3. On 9th February, 1968. by an application Ex. 21, she sought permission for an amendment of a written statement By that application she wanted to take up three further contentions in regard to maintainability of the suit. One of them was that there was a previous suit between the parties an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »