Gujarat Court October 1974 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.
Dr. B.M. Rana and ors. Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-07-1974
Reported in: (1975)16GLR1039
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. A question of fundamental importance (and of principle) which is likely to have great impact on the lives and careers of newly graduated doctors prosecuting their studies for post-graduate courses is raised in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is raised by petitioner No. 1 (along with 3 other petitioners) who secured 64.80% marks in the speciality of medicine as against 53% secured by respondent No. 7 at the final M.B.B.S. Examination upon the latter (and others who secured less marks than him) being preferred to him for appointment as Registrar in Medicine at the L.G. Hospital, Ahmedabad, a teaching hospital run by the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad. They have challenged the appointments made in disregard of their claim to the said post by virtue of much higher marks and better merits than the appointees as being unprincipled, arbitrary, capricious and violative of ArticleS 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India.2. Respondent No...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Nagindas Kilabhai and Co ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-1974
Reported in: [1975]101ITR197(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The relevant assessment year for purposes of this reference is 1962-63. The assessee-firm carrying on business in the name of M/s. Nagindas Kilabhai & Company deals in textile machinery parts through its branches at Ahmedabad, Bombay, Kanpur, Calcutta, Indore, Surat and Malegaon. The partnership dated January 1, 1959, between eight partners, namely, (1) Shri Anubhai N. Shah, (2) Shri Dilipbhai A. Shah, (3) Shri Vimalbhai N. Shah, (4) Shri Gautambhai V. Shah, (5) Shri Vikrambhai V. Shah, (6) Shri Manibhai M. Patel, (7) Shri Rameshbhai M. Patel and (8) Shri Natverbhai M. Patel. On account of some differences arising between the partners, it was decided between them that Shri Anubhai N. Shah and his son, Shri Dilipbhai A. Shah, should retire with effect from January 1, 1961. On what terms and conditions these two partners should retire was the subject-matter of reference to the sole arbitrator, one Shri Narottambhai P. Hathising, under an agreement of March 25, 1961. The ...
Lalchand Jernatmal Vs. Nanabhai Ranchhoddas and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-04-1974
Reported in: AIR1976Guj122; (1976)1GLR1
Divan, C.J. 1. This Civil Revision Application has been referred to us by the Division Bench consisting of M. U. Shah and B. K. Mehta jj. The matter came up before that Division Bench, though ordinarily a Civil Revision Application is disposed of by a Single Judge, because A. A. Dave J., by his order dated April 27, 1973 referred the Civil Revision Application to a larger Bench because he felt that he was unable to agree with the reasoning of T. V.Mehta, J., in Civil Revision Application No. 1215 of 1968 decided on February 2, 1973 (reported in (1974) 15 Gui LR 238). The question before us is relating to the interpretation of Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Act No. LVII of 1947) hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act') and so far as Section 12(3)(b) applies to an appeal filed by the landlord after dismissal of the landlord's suit for recovery of possession on the ground of non-payment of rent, M. U. Shah and B. K. Mehta fe...
Virubhai H. Patel Vs. Shaikh Mohammed Sayed
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-01-1974
Reported in: (1975)16GLR735
D.P. Desai, J.1. These two Civil Applications have been preferred by the appellant in each of the aforesaid two First Appeals for condonation of delay in filing the respective appeals. The facts and the dates relevant for this purpose may be stated. The opposite party had applied for a patent before the Scientific Officer of the Patent Office at Calcutta. The opposition was entered by the appellant of each of the two appeals in respect of the grant of the said patent. The appellant in each case opposed the grant through his Patent Agent and Attorney Messrs Remfry & Sons, Calcutta. The Scientific Officer, by his order dated October 27,1973 overruled the objections of the appellant in each case and ordered the patent to be sealed. This decision was communicated to the aforesaid Agent of the appellants on November 1, 1973. The appellants were not aware of this decision; and, therefore, they enquired from their Agent on December 19, 1973 as regards the Judgment in the matter. Thereafter on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›