Gujarat Court July 1969 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kaushikprasad Chandulal Mahadevia and anr. Vs. the Ahmedabad Municipal ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-08-1969
Reported in: (1970)11GLR993
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. There is a plot of land situate in Shahibaug, Ahmedabad, which at one time belonged to the first petitioner. The northern part of this plot of land bore survey No. 186A and the southern part bore survey No. 186B. The draft scheme relating to the Town Planning Schene No. 14 of Shahibaug, Ahmedabad, was sanctioned by the State Government by a notification dated 9th December 1954 issued under Section 14(2) of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1915 (hereinafter called the old Act) and under the draft scheme as sanctioned, this plot of land which was designated old plot No. 107 was retained as one single plot and given final plot No. 189. The second respondent was appointed arbitrator to decide various matters specified in Section 30 of the old Act and pursuant to this appointment, the second respondent entered upon his duties as arbitrator. In the meantine, the old Act was repealed by the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the new Act) which came i...
The New Shorrock Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. the Municipal Corporation ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-1969
Reported in: (1970)11GLR558
N.K. Vakil, J.1. In this group of 21 writ petitions, the petitioners are various Cotton Textile Mills located within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad (hereafter referred to as the 'Corporation')- They challenge the validity of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 152A of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and pray that respondent No. 1 the Corporation be directed to refund to them the respective amounts recovered by it as property tax. Respondent No. 2 is the Municipal Commissioner. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the details as regards the names of the petitioning Textile Mills, the year of assessment of the property tax, the amount claimed as refund etc. are given hereunder in a tabular form:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sr. No. Petitioner's name Present Amount of taxes Years ofpetition ordered to be assessmentnumber refunded by thethe Supreme Court------------...
Sureshchandra Dhirajlal Store and ors. Vs. K.K. Shrotriya, Dist. Deput ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-1969
Reported in: (1970)11GLR821
J.B. Mehta, J.1. These petitions are filed by the landlords against the order of the District Deputy Collector, dated October 16, 1964, setting aside the order of the Mamlatdar and the Agricultural Lands Tribunal dated July 4, 1963, on the preliminary question whether the applications filed before the Mamlatdar were barred by limitation. The petitioners are the Ex-Inamdars of two villages in Chorasi Taluka in Surat District. By the order, dated May 8, 1957, of the Assistant Collector under Section 5(2) of the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952, the petitioners were' held to be occupants keeping at the same time the question open as to whether these respondents were permanent or protected tenants for which purpose they were asked to approach the competent authority under the Tenancy Act. The tenants filed an application on June 19, 1962, for getting the nature of their tenancy determined on the ground that they were permanent tenants. The tenants had filed these applications stat...
Kantilal Damodardas Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-02-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Guj218; 1970CriLJ1359; (1970)0GLR868
1. A short, yet an interesting question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the statement Ex. 13 of the accused which came to be recorded by Mr. Erulkar, the Police Officer giving out information therein about his having given illegal gratification to the extent of Rs. 200/- to Mr. Desai, Superintendent of Excise, was a statement falling within the ambit of Section 162 of the Criminal P.C. and if so, whether the same can be made the basis of a complaint against him for an offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts giving rise to this prosecution are quite simple. The accused happened to be the proprietor of Rajkamal Stores situated in Bhadra in the City of Ahmedabad. The premises of the Stores were raided on 13-10-1962 by Mr. Ishverlal Chotubhai Desai, the Superintendent Prohibition and Excise, with the assistance of other officers and on a search carried out, various articles were seized. Some of those articles were in the nature of bottl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›