Gujarat Court October 1976 Judgments
Miya Mohamed Abdulkarim Jariwala and anr. Vs. Collector of Surat and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-21-1976
Reported in: (1977)18GLR488
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. There is a plot of land bearing old survey No. 6 and new survey no. 3141 in ward no. 3 of Surat city admeasuring about 2518 sq. yds. The appellant no. 1 had made an application dt. June 1, 1962 under Section 18 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Surat, for registration of public trust, namely, 'Sarvajanik Jmumasha Kabrasian'. In the said application, appellants nos. 2 and 3 were shown to be the trustees of the said trust and the mode of succession to trusteeship was by appointment from the residents of three localities of Surat, namely, Ambawadi Kalipul Ambawadi Ghadewan's Takra and Ambawadi Saiyed Badarmiya's Moholla. The aforesaid plot of land bearing old s. no. 6 and new s. no. 3141 admeasuring about 2518 sq. yds. had been shown to be the property of the said public trust. It was averred in the application that the said property was being used as a burial ground by the Musalmans resid...
Tag this Judgment!Hundraj Chhangomal and Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-21-1976
Reported in: (1978)19GLR34
M.C. Trivedi, J.1. This group of 24 appeals is decided by this common judgments because a common question of interpretation of Sections 73, 74 and 76 of the Indian Railways Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the application of the principles contained therein arises for determination.2. First Appeal No. 240 of 1971 involving the same question was filed in this Court, but at the stage of hearing the same was withdrawn.3. First Appeals Nos. 177 of 1973, 306 of 1973 and 594 of 1973 are filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Suits Nos. 1510 of 1969, 2059 of 1969 and 2042 of 1969 respectively. These appeals are filed against the judgment and decree dismissing the suits of the respective plaintiffs filed against the railway administration for compensation. The rest of the appeals are filed by the railway administration against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in different civil suits fi...
Tag this Judgment!Dayalal Gangaram Vs. Bhimani Bhupatrai Chunilal and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-19-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Guj68; (1977)0GLR349
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The short question which has been referred by the learned single judge in this matter is as under:-'In the absence of a contract between the landlord and the tenant as regards payment of the education cess by the tenant, would the amount of education cess form part of the rent payable by the tenant to the landlord so as to enable the Court to decide in a case governed by Section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act') whether the said rent is payable by the month or otherwise?'The context in which this question had arisen was that the suit premises had been let out to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- and there was no rent note or anything to show that besides this amount of monthly rent which the tenant agreed to pay as consideration for taking the property the tenant agreed to pay inter alia the education cess. The rent had fallen in arrears from August 1, 1966 for more than six month...
Tag this Judgment!Bhailalbhai Govindbhai Vs. Bai Nanduba
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-1976
Reported in: (1977)0GLR901
ORDER1. Two questions pertaining to interpretation of S. 32 (1-B) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act'), are raised in this petition by a tenant from whom possession was obtained between the appointed day (June 15, 1955) and the specified day (March 3, 1973) within the meaning of S. 32 (IB) of the Tenancy Act by the respondent-landlord otherwise than under S. 29 or any other provisions of the Tenancy Act.2. The two questions are; (i) whether it is necessary for the tenant to establish that violence or threat was employed in dispossessing him of the land in question and (ii) whether the successor-in-interest of the tenant can claim the right of restoration envisaged by S. 32 (1B) of the Tenancy Act.3. The facts are not in dispute, The father of the petitioner, deceased Govindbhai, was a tenant in respect of the disputed land belonging to the respondent on the appointed day within the meaning of the Act, that is to say, on ...
Tag this Judgment!Champaklal Dahyabhai Natali and ors. Vs. Saraswatiben and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-14-1976
Reported in: (1977)0GLR186
Desai, J.1. The decisions of two Division Benches are conflicting on the issue as to whether a person who purchases the leased property along with arrears of rent prior to his purchase can evict a tenant in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that is why the said point is referred to us. The facts in all the civil revision applications are similar and we shall state briefly the facts in Civil Revision Application No. 533 of 1969, which are that the suit property is a part of Nondh No. 817 situated in the city of Surat. The leased property isused as a stable. The present owner purchased the property on August 4, 1966 from its previous owner with the right to recover the rent already due at the date of transfer from the defendanttenant. The rent was due from July 1, 1965, The plaintiff-landlord, therefore, gave a notice to the defendant-tenant demanding the rent due from July 1,...
Tag this Judgment!Ramniklal Dwarkadas Modi Vs. Mohanlal Laximichand and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-14-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Guj15; (1977)GLR32(GJ)
Desai, J.1. In this reference the question to be determined is whether it is not sufficient to raise a dispute as to the standard rent within one month in reply to the notice or even prior to the date of such demand of rent, but it is necessary in either case also to make an application under Section 11 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) within one month of the notice referred to in Section 12(2) of the Act in order to avoid a decree of eviction under Section 12(2)(a) of the Act. To state shortly, the essential facts are that the suit residential premises were rented by the opponent plaintiff landlord to the petitioner defendant tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 45/-. The tenant was in arrears of rent with effect from April 1, 1966. The tenant had given a notice to the landlord on September 2, 1966 and raised a dispute that the monthly rent of Rs. 45/- was excessive. Thus he raised a dispute as to the standard rent of t...
Tag this Judgment!Bapulal Kalidas (Since Deceased by His Heirs) and ors. Vs. Bai Kashibe ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-1976
Reported in: (1977)18GLR77
P.D. Desai, J.1. The petitioner, since deceased, was the defendant (tenant) arid the opponent' was the plaintiff (landlord) in a suk for; recovery of possession of-the suit-premises and for arrears of rent. The relief relating to recovery of possession was founded on three grounds;' (L); that the suit premises were reasonably and bonaftide required-by; the opponent for occupation by herself; that the petitioner had unlawfully sub-let the suit premises; and (3) that the petitioner was a tenant in arrears of rent who had forfeited the protection of the Rent Act. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court found against the opponent so far as the first two grounds of eviction were concerned. However, by a concurrent decision, the two Courts have found that the case was covered by Section 12(3)(a). A decree of eviction accordingly came to be passed. Hence the present Revision Application.2. At the hearing of the Revision Application, it was urged in the forefront that the notice under S...
Tag this Judgment!Kirit Chhaganlal Gadhwi and anr. Vs. the Gujarat University, Ahmedabad ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-08-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Guj154; (1977)GLR876
ORDER1. A question of life or death significance for First M. B. B. S. students, the answer to which would save or scuttle their careers has arisen in the context of the interpretation of an Ordinance framed by the Gujarat University for its Faculty of Medicine, viz. 0. MI B. B. S. 9, which is in the following terms:'Failure to pass the examination will not debar candidates from appearing at any subsequent examination on the submission of a new application, the payment of a fresh fee and the production of certificates showing that they have, during the interval between the declaration of their failure and subsequent reappearance at the examination, pursued a further course of study in the subjects of the examination to the satisfaction of the head of a Medical College recognised by the University; provided, however, that candidates who fail to pass this examination on five occasions will not be eligible to reappear thereat.Candidates shall be deemed to have failed to pass an examinatio...
Tag this Judgment!The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Ahmedabad Vs. the Nutan Mills ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-1976
Reported in: AIR1978Guj1; (1977)GLR409
Thakkar, J.1. This suo motu reference made by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under sub-section . 54 of the Bombay Stamp 7c), 1958 (hereinafter called the 'Stamp Act') as applicable to Gujarat' highlights an instance of partial legislative misfire which has resulted in a situation where a document liable to stamp duty having been already acted upon, the revenue is not ~able to collect the duty which ought to have been paid on it or to enforce its payment. This has happened because the loophole which enabled a party to escape from payment of differential stamp duty on account of the different rates of stamp, duty prevailing in the State of Gujarat on one hand and the other States was plugged to an extent by making a provision for charging the duty but the Legislature failed to carry out its object completely inasmuch as it failed to make a provision in respect of collection of such duty if the document was already acted upon.2. The history of the matter culminating in the presen...
Tag this Judgment!Diwanji Gandaji Jadev Vs. the Kadi Municipality
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-01-1976
Reported in: (1978)19GLR10
D.P. Desai, J.1. This petition and the arguments advanced in support of it have raised firstly the question whether under Section 146(1) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1993 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), a part of the public street can be discontinued or stopped; and secondly whether such part of public street can be discontinued or stopped for the purpose of raising structure like shops thereon by the municipality and letting them out so as to augment municipal revenues. These two questions arise in the following facts.2. The petitioner is a permanent resident of and carries on business at Kadi; and the opposite party is the municipality of Kadi. There is a road leading to railway station of Kadi 86 feet wide known as station road. The said road admittedly vests in the municipality and is a public street or a public road. The standing committee of the municipality passed a resolution on December 21, 1970 deciding to construct cabins for raising revenue of the municipality. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›