Gujarat Court November 1976 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.
Mochi Narsinhbhai Gandabhai Vs. Shah Motilal Himatlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-29-1976
Reported in: (1977)18GLR542
A.N. Surti, J.1. The petitioner-tenant was aggrieved by the eviction decree passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Baroda in Regular Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1969, which had arisen out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, (J.D.), Karjan in Regular Civil Suit No. 41 of 1966. The learned Extra Assistant Judge took the view that the petitioner-tenant is not entitled to any protection under Section (12)(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act. The learned trial Judge passed the decree against the petitioner-tenant under Section 12(3) (a) of the Rent Act and he also took the view that the petitioner-tenant is not entitled under Section 12(3) (b) of the Bombay Rent Act.2. A few relevant facts giving rise to the present revision application may be stated in brief. By the rent note dated April 8, 1962 vide Ex 24 the suit premises were let out for the residential purpose of the petitioner tenant and it was agreed in the said rent note that the petitioner tenant the petitioner-...
Nandanvan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. the Ahmedabad Municipa ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-26-1976
Reported in: (1978)19GLR189
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is an appeal by the original plaintiff of the Civil Suit No. 180 of 1970 of the City Civil Court, Abrnedabad where it had come to be dismissed with costs. The appellant-the original plaintiff is a Co-operative Housing Society that had purchased some open land in 1956. In the year 1961, as per the title acquired under the sale deed, when the plaintiffs society went to execute the decree for possession against the judgment-debtor introduced on the land by the society's vendor, found there that at the instance of that judgment-debtor many shanties had come to be established with the aid and assistance of the said judgment-debtor who was bound to be evicted from the land as per the decree. The respondent-municipality then purported to levy house tax on those huts and then issued public notices in the newspapers intimating that the property of the plaintiff-society would be put to public auction on 29-1-70 to realize those taxes. As a matter of fact, the notice was wit...
Abdul Latif Idubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-26-1976
Reported in: (1978)19GLR54
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is an appeal by the original plaintiff of the Civil Suit No. 1481 of 1970 of the court of the City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad. The suit had been filed by the plaintiff against the State of Gujarat and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein for an injunction restraining them from taking possession of the suit property described in the plaint in pursuance of the acquisition proceedings, which according to him were vitiated on account of the mandatory notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act having not been given. The learned Judge negatived the basic contention of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit.2. Mr. Mehta for the plaintiff-appellate invited my attention to Section 45 of the Act, under Sub-section (2) of which the service of the notice has got to be made on the person named in the notice whenever it may be practicable. He urged by reference 'to Sub-section (3) of Section 45 that the service may be made on ...
Hasmukh Engineering Works and anr. Vs. Babubhai Chhotalal AmIn and anr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-24-1976
Reported in: (1978)19GLR172
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is an appeal by the original debtors of the Insolvency Petition No. 8 of 1971 of the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. It was an application given on behalf of the present respondents Nos. 1 and 2 claiming to be the creditors of the appellants-debtors. The allegation was that the opponent No. 1 (the original appellant No. 1, a partnership firm) and the appellants Nos. 2 and 3, (its partners) had failed to pay the amount of Rs. 15,000/- under a promissory note, the amount having been paid by the applicants to the firm on 1-1-1970.2. The said application had been admitted and then a notice was issued to the debtor and also a general notice under Section 19(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act has been ordered to be issued. The present appellants, however, prayed to the court and requested the court that before a general notice inviting the alleged other creditors of the appellants was issued, they should be heard. The learned Judge, however, on interpretation of Section...
Sheru @ Shehra Gustadji Vs. Gustadji Ukkadji Kadodwala
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-23-1976
Reported in: (1977)18GLR777
A.D. Desai, J.1. Gustadji Ukkadji married Bai Sheru Gustadji according to Parsi rites on May 10, 1954 at Surat. For some time the couple ved happily but in the year 1967 Sheru filed Parsi Matrimonial Suit No. 3 of 1967 in the Court of the Parsi District Matrimonial Court, Surat to obtain a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Her husband Gustadji filed a counter claim praying for judicial separation. The Court by its judgment dated December 6, 1967 dismissed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights and passed a decree for judicial separation. Bai Sheru thereafter filed Regular Appeal No. 34 of 1969 in the High Court against the said decree but it was dismissed on November 6, 1970. Thereafter Gustadji, the plaintiff, filed Parsi Matrimonial Suit No. 3 of 1971 in the Court of the Parsi District Matrimonial Court, Surat, seeking divorce under Section 32(h) of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground that the parties had no marit...
Mangaldas Pitamberdas Rana Vs. Nalinkumar Mugallal Jayaswal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-23-1976
Reported in: (1977)18GLR508
A.N. Surti, J.1. The petitioner-tenant was aggrieved by the impugned decree of eviction passed by the learned 3rd Extra Assistant Judge, Baroda in Civil Appeal No. 317 of 1972 and which had arisen out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, (J.D.). Baroda in Regular Civil Suit No. 293 1969.2. A few relevant facts giving rise to the present revision application may be stated in brief. The opponent-landlord filed Regular Civil Suit No. 293 of 1969 in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge. J.D. Baroda for getting an eviction decree essentially on two grounds viz., (1) for arrears of rent for a period of more than six month, and (2) for bona fide personal requirement. It may be mentioned at this stage that it was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is a tenant of the shop on the ground floor of the premises in question and its monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 10/ - in the year 1961. It is also the case of the plaintiff that two residential rooms on the upper ...
Anjar Municipality Vs. Ruparel Dharamshi Naranjl
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-20-1976
Reported in: (1978)19GLR58
A.N. Surti, J.1. By the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Anjar (Kutch), the application of the petitioner-defendant was rejected. The petitioner-defendant had filed an application Ex. 24 slating that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in question. The Petitioner-Municipality stated in its application Ex. 24 that the opponent-plaintiff had filed a suit on an allegation that the suit lands and the structures standing thereon belonged to him and had filed a suit for damages. The Petitioner-Municipality denied that the suit land belonged to the opponent-plaintiff. It is also stated in Ex. 24 that the dispute between the parties is in respect of the ownership rights in regard to the suit land, and the trial Court had raised issue No. 1 in regard to the same. It is further stated in Ex. 24 that if there is any dispute between any person and the Municipality in regard to the ownership right of the land situated within the Municipal limits, then the Civi...
Hiraben D/O Ranchhodbhai Odhavbhai Vs. Pragjibhai Shankerbhai, by His ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-19-1976
Reported in: (1978)19GLR24
A.N. Surti, J.1. The question of jurisdiction which I am required to decide in this revision application is: Whether the Mamlatdar has jurisdiction to decide the question of past tenancy after Gujarat Amendment Act 5 of 1973 came into force on March 8, 1973, particularly when before coming into operation of the said Act, the High Court had directed the Civil Court to decide the question of past tenancy following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Musamia lmarn v. Rabari Govindbhai A.I.R. 1969 Supreme Court, 439.2. A few relevant facts giving rise to the present revision application may be stated in brief.3. The applicant had filed a suit being Special Civil Suit No. 12 of 1955 for recovering possession of agricultural properties, houses and building sites from original defendant No. I on the ground that the applicant and opponent No. 2 being the full sisters were the owners and became entitled to the possession of the said properties on the remarriage of opponent No. 3 on June 19, 19...
Swishflo Private Limited Vs. N.R. Jadav
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-18-1976
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT153(Guj)
S. Obul Reddi, C.J.1. The short question that arises in this Special Civil Application is whether Swishflo Fan falls within the ambit of entry 33 (1) or entry 33 (2) of Schedule I to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The respondents, treating Swishflo Fan as an electric fan falling within the scope and ambit of Entry 33 (3) that is, 'Not otherwise specifically levied excise duty at 12 per cent ad valorem. It is this demand by the respondents that led to the filing of the petition by the petitioners, Swishflo Private Limited another.2. According to the petitioners, Swishflo electric fan falls under sub-item (1),of Item No. 33 and hence the duty is payable only at the rate of 7.2 per cent ad valorem. The respondents resisted the petition contending inter alia that this Swishflo fan has no diameter and hence only fans referred to in sub-item (1) which have a diameter not exceeding 40.6 cm. that would be entitled to the levy of excise duty at 7.2 per cent ad valorem. It is also the c...
Prakash Surya Vs. Rasiklal Ishverlal Mehta
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-18-1976
Reported in: (1977)18GLR1024
D.A. Desai, J.1. Shri Prakash Surya, Petitioner herein, has preferred this revision applieation against the judgment and decree in Regular Civil Appeal No. 138 of 1970 filed by him in the District Court, Kutch at Bhuj, by which he was directed to hand over vacant and peaceful posses- sion of the pretnises occupied by him as a tenant. Respondent is the original plaintiff.2. Plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 141 of 1969 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anjar, District Kutch, against the defendant for recovering possession of the premises being a house situated in Adipur town on the ground that the defendant is a tenant in arrears and is not shown to be ready and willing to pay the rent and also on the ground that the plaintiff reasonably and bona fide required the suit premises for his own use and occupation. The defendant-tenant appeared in the suit and filed his written statement Ex. 14, inter alia, contending that the notice terminating the tenancy was not legal and...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »