Gujarat Court December 1977 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.
Narmadashanker Makanji Raval Vs. Niranjan Ambalal Thakore and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-02-1977
Reported in: (1978)19GLR843
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. These three Letters Patent Appeals arise respectively out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Applications Nos. 2166 of 1976,9 of 1977 and 134 of 1977, all of which were dismissed by the learned Single Judge, confirming the order of the Election Tribunal i.e. the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baroda, that was pleased to set aside election of the appellants herein. The dispute concerns the municipal elections for electing the councillors for Baroda Municipal Corporation for Wards Nos. III and V. The nomination papers of one of the respondents in each of the two election petitions in these Wards had come to be rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that they had indirect interest in the contract of employment or employment with the Corporation in so far as those candidates had executed surety bonds in respect of the contract of service by some employees of the Corporation. It is no longer in dispute before us that those prospective candi...
Z.A. Chinwala Vs. Minoo Jal Pardiwala and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-02-1977
Reported in: (1978)19GLR626
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. Two questions arise in this revisional application directed against an interlocutory order passed by the learned Judge presiding over 10th Court, City Civil Court, on July 23, 1976, namely, (1) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the document in question was a 'bond' within the meaning of Section 2(c)(ii) of the Bombay Stamp Act 1958, and (2) whether the learned trial Judge was empowered to pass an order directing the petitioner-plaintiff to pay the deficit stamp fees on the footing that the document was a bond alongwith ten times the penalty on the amount of deficit.2. So far as the first point is concerned, the view taken by the learned trial Judge appears to be exceptionable. Under the document in question executed on October 17, 1972 which is attested by witnesses and which does not make he amount under the document payable to order or bearer, a new arrangement has been arrived at in respect of the preexisting liability for a sum of Rs. 1500...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›