Gujarat Court January 1978 Judgments
Rameshchandra Ramanbhai Patel and anr. Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-1978
Reported in: (1979)1GLR191
P.D. Desai, J.1. The town of Anand is a municipal borough within the meaning of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It has a municipality which is a body corporate consisting of elected councillors. The last general election of councillors of the municipal borough was held sometime in 1972. At that time, on the basis of the population of the municipal borough, which was found to be 59069 at the census held in 1971, the number of councillors to be elected was fixed at 35. Out of the total number of seats of councillors determined as aforesaid, three seats were reserved for women and two seats were reserved for scheduled castes. For the purposes of the election, the municipal borough was divided into wards and the number of members to be elected from each ward was duly determined. This was done by the State Government by an order made on June 1, 1972. Accordingly, the municipal borough was divided into 12 wards and 35 seats including reserved seat...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Jesinghbhai Chhitabhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-27-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Guj119
S.H. Sheth, J. 1. The plaintiffs are the owners of Survey No. 395 situated on the northern bank of Narmada river in Breach District. It admeasures 99 acres and 17 gunthas. It is their case that on account of the, slow and gradual shifting of the course of Narmada, alluvial land was formed which admeasured 21 acres. They took its possession and began to cultivate it. The revenue authorities noticed that these 21 acres of land hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land) was not alluvial land but was Bet Bhatha land and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to hold it. Therefore. the Collector, Broach, issued on 1lth May, 1967 notice to the plaintiffs for handing over its possession to the revenue authorities. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed the present suit for a declaration that they are the riparian owners of the suit land, that they are entitled to take its possession and that the suit land cannot be dealt with except in accordance with Ss. 63 and 64 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. T...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat -i Vs. Navnitlal Sakarlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(Guj)258; [1980]125ITR67(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. In this reference made at the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to us for our opinion: 'Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that half share of the income in respect of the estate of late Shri Balabhai Damodardas was not taxable in the hands of the assessee when the estate was being administered by Shri Sakarlal Balabhai, having regard to the provisions of section 168 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. We are concerned in this the case with assessment years 1963-64 to 1967-68, the relevant accounting years being the previous samvat years. The assessee is an individual. The assessee's grandfather, Balabhai Damodardas had made a will on October 6, 1956, leaving one-half of his estate to the assessee and the other half to the assessee's brother, Nandkishore. Balabhai Damodardas died on December 31, 1957. Balabhai was possessed of considerable movable properties acquired by him personally and held by him in his i...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank Viram Co-op. Housing So. Vs. Pankaj and Co. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-1978
Reported in: (1979)1GLR118
B.K. Mehta, J.1. A short but interesting question arises as to what should be the appropriate court-fees which should be paid by a party not only challenging the decree made in terms of the award under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act but also challenging the order of the trial Court refusing to set aside the award under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act. The question arises in the following circumstances:2. The respondent, who is the original plaintiff, undertook to construct a bungalow on behalf of the petitioner-defendant, and an agreement was effected between the parties. The said agreement contained an arbitration clause and the disputes having arisen between the parties were referred to the arbitrator who made an ex parte award. The arbitrator moved the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, by his Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 571 of 1972, praying for a decree in terms of the award under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. The petitioner-defendant also moved the City Civil Court, Ah...
Tag this Judgment!Kanubhai Sankalchand Patel Vs. Nayankunj Co-operative Housing Society ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-23-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Guj140; (1978)0GLR920
S.H. Sheth, J. 1. The Plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants for obtaining decree for specific performance of the contract for sale Exh. 116 dated 27th May 1963. Under that agreement of sale, the land admeasuring 3500 sq. vds. out of S. No. 235 of Rajpur-Hirpur in the City of Ahmedabad was agreed to be sold by defendant No. 8 to the Plaintiff. The total area of S. No. 235 was 3 acres 25 gunthas or 18045 sq. Vds. In the alternative, the plaintiff prayed for a decree for damages in the sum of Rs. 57085/-. The land in question originally belonged to one Sankalchand Manilal Mukhi who died on 14th July 1963. He had executed an agreement of sale in respect of 6000 sq. Yds. of land out of this survey number in favour of defendant No. 8 on 16th Aug. 1962. Defendant No. 8 in his turn executed in favour of the plaintiff the said agreement in respect of 3500 sq. Vds. of land. After the expiry of the owner of the land, some of his heirs refused to execute the direct sale deed in f...
Tag this Judgment!Shivkor Motasing Vs. Ramnaresh Munsising and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-16-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Guj115; (1978)GLR713
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants for recovering a sum of Rs. 15000/- under the following circumstances. Defendants Nos. 1 and 3 are the teachers in a Municipal School where one Jagpalsingh son of the plaintiffs was studying. Defendant No. 2 is the Head Master of the School. Defendant No. 4 is Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation which runs the school Jagpalsing, a boy of about 12 years of age was one amongst the sixty who constituted the picnic party. On 6th Sept. 1966 the picnic party of these young urchins was taken by defendants Nos. 1 and 3 to Bhadreshwar situate on the bank of river Sabarmati in the outskirts of the city of Ahmedabad. The party reached the picnic spot at about 9-30 A. M. It appears that after the party reached there, the picnic party took food. Thereafter, defendants Nos. 1 and 3 who were in charge of the picnic party had been taking their food. At about 11-30 A. M. when defendants Nos. 1 and 3 had been taking food, they hear...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›