Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1975)16GLR164
J.B. Mehta, J.1. This application has been referred to us by our learned brother Surti J. for answering the following four questions:(1) Whether Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 imposes a statutory obligation on the learned Magistrate to send to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, a copy of the memorandum along with the specimen of the seal of the food inspector used to seal the container or along with the seal of the Magistrate only?(2) That if the Magistrate does not send the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the container by the food inspector as required by Rule (3), the certificate issued by the director should be made admissible in evidence or not?(3) Whether at the appeal stage an opportunity should be given in case of this nature to the appellant-accused to canvass the point which is canvassed by Mr. Thakore before me.(4) Whether any report should be called from the learned Magistrate informing this Court as to whether he had carried out the statutory requirement of Rule ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1975)16GLR289
T.U. Mehta, J.1. This Appeal arises out of the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Baroda Region, under Section 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, registering the public trust known as 'Dadabhai Trust' and holding that agricultural lands bearing Section Nos. 432, 433, 434 and 461 of the village Kholwad, taluka Kamrej of Surat district, are the lands belonging to the said trust. The appellants claim to be the tenants over the lands in question and they have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the decision given by the Assistant Judge at Surat under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act in Misc. Application No. 64/67. The appellants have in this appeal challenged the findings that the lands mentioned above are the lands belonging to the above referred trust.2. Short facts of the case are that it is an undisputed fact that before the above referred trust was created on 31st December, 1956 one Dayabhai Nathubhai, was cultivating these lands as a tenant. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1975Guj120; (1975)1GLR509
1. Even though an illiterate sitting tenant, who does a good turn to his landlord by advancing a loan on mortgage, expressly does nothing, the law should attribute and ascribe to him a suicidal intention to surrender his tenancy by virtue of the fictional doctrine of merger (about which the poor tenant obviously knows nothing) say, the respondent. And it is this proposition which inter alia calls for scrutiny in this appeal.2. On March 14, 1947, the owners of the Suit fields, which according to the appellant were in his possession as a sitting tenant since more than 6 years before the date of transaction, transferred the same to one Vadilal under a registered document EX. 54.whether the document is one of an outright sale or one creating a mortgage by conditional sale is one of the questions which confronts the Court in the present matter. 21/2 months there after the transferee, Vadilal, executed document, Ex. 25, transferring such rights as he had acquired from the original owners to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1975Guj54; (1974)GLR655
A.D. Desai, J.A - Relevant facts to state briefly, are that the petitioner is the landlord of the first opponent in respect of residential premises. The petitioner gave a notice dated March 1, 1965 through his lawyer to the said opponent of eviction and demanding arrears of rent by registered post with an acknowledgment due. The envelope in which the notice demanding possession and arrears of rent was sent, is produced in the suit subsequently filed by the petitioner against the opponents to recover possession and arrears of rent. The possession of the suit premises was sought on various grounds including that of arrears of rent. The envelope produced in the case shows that there is an endorsement of 'not found' which is dated March 3, 1965. There is another endorsement of 'refused' dated March 5, 1965. On the other side of the envelope there are two cross lines across the name of the addressee tenant and between these two cross lines endorsement 'refused' is noted which bears the date...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1975Guj116
ORDER1. This revision petition is filed by the original defendant - Union of India - against the order passed by the learned Civil judge, junior Division, Dhrangadhra, in Civil Suit No. 63 of 1971, filed by the plaintiff-opponent against the petitioner for refund of an amount of Rs. 2,107.30 paise. The learned trial Judge decided issues Nos: 4 and 5 as preliminary issues and they have been decided against the petitioner. Those issues read as under:'Issue No. 4: Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit as alleged by the defendant?Issue No. 5: Whether no notice of claim was given by the plaintiff as required in law? If so, whether the present suit is tenable?'The trial Court has held that it has got jurisdiction to entertain this suit. It is also held that no claim notice as contemplated under Section 78-B of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (which will be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was necessary as it was not a case of recovery of over charges. Non-giving o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1975)16GLR277
A.D. Desai, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Registrar of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad on September 12, 1969 on probation for a period of 2 years. The order of appointment is at Annexure 'B' to the petition. The probation period was extended from time to time by the Government. On a complaint filed by Mr. N.C. Thakker, an advocate a preliminary inquiry was held by the High Court and ultimately a charge sheet at Annexure 'D' under the signature of respondent No. 2 who is the Registrar of the High Court, was served on the petitioner and the charges were as under:(1) That you while serving as Registrar, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, on or about May 5, 1970, demanded Rs. 30/- which amount thereafter was reduced to Rs. 25/-, for the work of affirmations of affidavits before you, which was not your legal remuneration, and refused to get the affidavits affirmed before you unless you were paid the amount.(2) That the act on your part amounts to grave misconduct as a Government Serv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1975)16GLR40
A.D. Desai, J.1. The question which is common in these three proceedings and which arises for determination relates to the vires of Explanation (a) to Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question arises in this way. Plaintiff landlords filed civil suits in competent Courts against their respective tenants for possession of the leased premises on the ground of their bona fide requirements. Admittedly the landlords had purchased the suit properties after January 1, 1964 with sitting tenants. In the suits the landlords challenged the vires of Explanation (a) to Section 13(1)(g) of the Act on the ground that the said provisions violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Special Civil Application relates to the suit in which a preliminary issue was raised as to the vires of the provisions and the learned trial Judge decided the issue against the landlords. In suit out of which Reference No. 5 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1975Guj170; (1975)0GLR300
ORDER1. This is a revision petition filed by the original defendant-tenant against the plaintiff-opponent (landlord) against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, in Summary Suit No. 2106 of 1969. decreeing the plaintiff's suit against the defendant with costs for a sum of Rs. 361.45 paise.2. Plaintiff-opponent filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioner-defendant (tenant) for recovery of Rs. 3,61.45 paise, being the amount of Education Cess paid by it on behalf of the petitioner in respect of the suit premises let by it to the petitioner-tenant. The liability of payment of the education cess was on the petitioner-tenant. As the tenant did not pay it, it was- obliged to pay it in the Municipal Corporation. The suit was, therefore, filed to recover that amount with 6 per cent. interest from the date of the suit till the date of payment.3. The petitioner-tenant, by its written statement, contended inter alia, that the Court bad no j...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1975)16GLR283
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner, a partnership firm, against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Broach, dated 29th July, 1971, in Regular Civil Suit No. 461 of 1968, that it being barred by law of limitation, it must fail, and has been consequently dismissed, directing each party to bear its own costs.2. Material facts leading rise to this revision petition, briefly stated, are as under:Opponent No. 1 Sheth Bhikhchand Trilokchand, according to the petitioner, was a registered non-member of the Association, named 'The Southern Gujarat Oil Seeds Merchants' Association Ltd.' at Palej, and the petitioner is a member of it. Opponent No. 1 had business dealings with the petitioner and according to the petitioner, opponent No. 1, in relation to it, was indebted to it to the extent of Rs. 9,078.62 paise. As per the rules of the Association, dispute was referred to arbitrators. Opponents Nos. 2 to 5 were the arbitrators. Opponent N...
Tag this Judgment!