Gujarat Court November 1977 Judgments
ZiyayuddIn SadruddIn Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-25-1977
Reported in: (1978)19GLR790
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the original plaintiff of the civil suit no. 713 of 1968 decided by the City Civil Court Judge at Ahmedabad, who was pleased to decree his suit for a declaration that his dismissal from Police service was bad at law and consequently he was entitled to arrears of pay, allowances and emoluments available to him according to law with effect from 25-5-1960, the day of his suspension, till the date of the suit as if he was although out on duty. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned trial Judge, the State of Gujarat bad preferred First Appeal No. 493 of 1972 in this Court. The said appeal had come to be decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court by his judgment dated 6-10-76. The learned Single Judge allowed the appeal partly. He confirmed the decree of the trial court to the extent that it declared the impugned order of dismissal as null and void. He however, held that the plaintiff was entitled...
Tag this Judgment!The Boarad of Trustees of the Port of Kandla Vs. M. Ramabrahman and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-21-1977
Reported in: (1978)19GLR758
Surti, J.1. The present appeal from order is directed against the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge, S.D. Bhuj on August 13, 1976, as the Board of Trustees for the Port of Kandla were aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge, whereby he rejected the application filed by the appellant trustees for setting aside the interim award on Claim No. 2 given on February 6, 1975 under Sections 14, 16, 30 and 33 etc. of the Arbitration Act, 1940.2. A few relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal may be shortly stated.3. On October 20, 1971, the appellants-trustees entered into a contract for the construction of the modification work of Oil Jetty at Old Kandla with M/s. Radio Foundation Engineering Ltd., and Hazarat and Co., one of the terms and conditions of the said contract was in the following terms.The completion period will be 12 months which does not include the preparation period of four months. Within 2 weeks of the letter of acceptance, the r...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Safe Deposit Co. Ltd. Vs. Mustafa Mohmed Dabhi and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-21-1977
Reported in: (1978)19GLR769
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. A question of considerable importance in regard to the liability or otherwise to pay ad valorem court-fees (i) on an application under the Indian Arbitration Act of 1940 (Arbitration Act) for the filing of an award and (2) on an application for judgment in terms of award on the basis of amount expressed on the face of the record or the valuation of the property which is the subject matter of the award, which appears to be res Integra, has cropped up in a group of four applications invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. At the instance of the Inspecting Officer (Court-fees) exercising jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 (Court-fees Act) the learned trial Judge has examined the question as to whether ad valorem court-fees are payable in respect of the applications of the aforesaid description. The learned trial Judge upheld the view point canvassed by the Inspecting Officer and negatived the contention of the petitioner to the ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Kantilal Pratapji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-18-1977
Reported in: (1978)19GLR417
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. When the plaintiff claims a declaration that the promissory notes executed by him in favour of the defendant are void, the same having been obtained by fraud or coercion without consideration, is he liable to pay court-fees calculated on the amount expressed on the face of the promissory notes under Article 7 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') or whether he is' liable to pay fixed court-fees at Rs. 30/- under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Act? That is the pivotal question in this revisional application preferred by the State of Gujarat calling into question an order passed by the learned Judge presiding over 8th Court of City Civil Court holding that fixed court-fees at Rs. 30/- 'are payable and not ad valorem court-fees on the' basis of the amount expressed on the face of the promissory notes. Reliance has been placed by the learned trial Judge and by the teamed counsel for the opponent-plaintiff on Inderlal Panwarmal v....
Tag this Judgment!V.C. Shroff Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-17-1977
Reported in: (1978)0GLR776; (1978)IILLJ480Guj
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. These two petitions are directed against the common respondent, the Gujarat Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board. The petitioner in the former petition is one V. C. Shroff, who was at the time of his premature retirement an executive engineer in the selection grade under the Board. The petitioner in the latter petition is one P. J. Pandya, who too was an executive engineer under the Board in the selection grade. Both these petitioners were made to retire compulsorily on the completion of the 55th year of their life. In these two petitions, each petitioner challenges the said order of premature retirement essentially on the ground that the order is passed in violation of the mandatory provisions of Regulation No. 72 framed by the Board in exercise of statutory authority vested in it. On the other hand, the respondent-Board, has tried to support the orders in question by urging that the orders are within the strict framework of the said Regulation No. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›