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.
Rami Dahyabhai Somabhai Vs. Rami Jagjivan Motibhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-16-1976
Reported in: (1978)19GLR737
D.A. Desai, J.1. A question of considerable importance has been raised in this appeal arising from execution proceedings initiated by respondents Nos. I to 3 while executing the decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 152 of 1965. The appellant and respondents Nos. 4 are original judgment debtors and respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are original decree holders.2. Facts relevant to the discussion of the point raised herein lie within a narrow compass. Decree holders (referred to as landlords) filed Regular Civil Suit No. 152 of 1961 for recovering possession of the property situate in village Anklav in Borsad taluka of Kaira District from the judgment-debtor (referred to as tenant). Amongst the property which was the subject matter of suit there were premises consisting of a house and two rooms (for short suit premises) which were in possession of the tenant. This suit ended in a consent decree, by which defendant tenant agreed to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the suit premises on ...
Patel Chandubhai Bhailalbhai Vs. Kheagarbhai Jeramji Purohit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-12-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Guj104; (1977)GLR587
ORDER1. The petitioner was the defendant (tenant) and the opponent was the plaintiff (landlord) in a suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises and arrears of rent. The suit in so far as it related to the relief of recovery of possession, was founded on only one ground, namely, that the petitioner was a tenant in arrears of rent who had forfeited the protection of the Rent Act. The trial Court found that the case was covered by S. 12(3)(a) and that the opponent was entitled to a decree of eviction. Al- it found that the petitioner was not entitled to be protected even under S. 12(3)(b) inasmuch as within one month of the service of the notice under S. 12(2) he failed to make an application under S. 11(3) for fixation of standard rent. In view of the findings aforesaid, the trial Court passed a decree of eviction. In appeal, the Appellate Court confirmed the material findings of the trial Court and consequently affirmed the decree of eviction. Hence the present Revision Applic...
Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-04-1976
Reported in: (1976)17GLR1017
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner who was a Judge of this Court challenges in this petition the order of his transfer dated May 27, 1976 at Annexure 'A'. The short facts which have given rise to this petition are as under.2. The petitioner was enrolled as an advocate of the Bombay High Court on January 28, 1946. He practised at Bombay since his enrolment until April 30, 1960 and on the formation of the Gujarat State, he shifted his legal practice to this High Court where he practised till April 22, 1969. On April 23, 1969 he was appointed a Judge of the Gujarat High Court for a period of two years and was appointed a permanent puisne Judge on August 5, 1970. The petitioner' would retire on completion of the age of 62 years on January 5, 1981 and so, a period of about four years and six months was left for him to retire from service.3. The petitioner has been transferred by the impugned order to the Andhra Pradesh High Court without obtaining his consent, without consulting him and agains...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›