Gujarat Court June 1978 Judgments
Maganbhai Madhavbhai Patel and ors. Vs. Patel Dhulabhai Chunibhai and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-29-1978
Reported in: (1979)1GLR114
S.H. Sheth, J.1. These two appeals arise out of Special Civil Suit No. 16 of 1967 decided by the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Baroda. The facts of the case briefly stated are as under.;2. The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants for recovery of possession of agricultural lands on the allegation that prior to 1st April 1957 he was the tenant in respect of those lands and had become their deemed purchaser under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. He further alleged that in 1965 he was dispossessed. In defence, it was contended that the plaintiff was not the tenant prior to 1st April 1957 and that, therefore, he had not become the deemed purchaser under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. It was next contended that he had surrendered the lands to the landlords on 1st April 1957 and had been working on the land since then as the landlord's servant. The learned trial Judge held that the plaintiff was the tenant prior to 1st April 1957 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Upleta Municipality, Upleta Vs. Yunus Haji Adam Fulara and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-28-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Guj117; (1978)GLR1123
1-4. x x x x 5. It is in the light of the above admitted or established facts that the various questions raised in this case are required to be decided. The first and foremost question which goes to the root of the plaintiff's case and which was urged in both the courts below was the question of a notice before the institution of the suit. Under S. 253 of the Gujarat Municipalities, Act, 1963, the notice is required to be given before any action is taken against the municipality. S. 253(1) is quoted below:'253(1) No suit shall lie against a municipality or against any officer or servant of municipality in respect of any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of this Act, or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of this Act- (a) unless it is instituted within six months next after the accrual of the cause of action; and (b) until the expiration of one month after notice in writing has been, in the case of a municipality, delivered or left at th...
Tag this Judgment!Her Jesa Kachra and ors. Vs. Marani Jayani Lakhman
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-28-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Guj45; (1979)1GLR64
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The plaintiff filed the present suit for the declaration of her title to the suit properties which consist of a house and an agricultural land situate at Porbandar. She also prayed for possession. The plaintiff made her claim on the following allegations.2. The suit properties originally belonged to her brother Arjan Laxman. Arjan Laxman died long before 1933 A. D. leaving behind him his widow Rudi who died in 1945. Manki, the daughter of Arjan Laxman and Rudi, succeeded to the estate. She died in 1969 without leaving any children. Her husband is the defendant. In other words, the rival claimants to the suit properties are Arian Laxman's sister on one hand and his son-in-law on the other hand.3. On 23rd Oct. 1933, Rudi, the widow of Arjan Lamnan, made a will Ex. 26. By that will, she provided that on her death, the suit properties would devolve upon Manki and upon Manki's death, they would devolve upon her children and, if she left no children, surviving her, they woul...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Ali Umar Mangalji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-21-1978
Reported in: (1979)1GLR254
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. Crusaders of the egalitarian cause proclaim that law in its application and implementation should be loaded in favour of the poor and should be administered with understanding and sympathy in an activist manner in order that the inequality in the income and the wealth between the poor and the rich disappears and to secure that a section of the citizens do not enjoy privileged treatment and constitute itself in a privileged class. Some may not subscribe to this view and may even oppose it. The proponents of no philosophy, however, have ever advocated that law should be so administered that it frowns at the poor and favours the rich. And even so in actual practice we often find that the law is administered in this fashion even in our society notwithstanding the professions of ushering in a sodialistic society enshrined in the preamble and Directive Principles of the Constitution. How else can one explain the discriminatory treatment in the matter of administration of j...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Kashiram Lavjibhai Vs. Narottamdas Bechardas and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-19-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Guj1; (1978)GLR1047
Divan, C.J. 1. The question which has been referred by the Division Bench of this Court for the decision of the Full Bench is as follows :'Whether an appeal against the decision of a single judge of this High Court in the exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution is barred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent (a) because the decision of the single judge can be said to be given in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court; or (b) it is otherwise barred?'The Division Bench consisting of two of us (Chief justice and D. P. Desai, J.) referred this question to the larger bench, because it was felt that the decision of the Division Bench consisting of S. H. Sheth and R. C. Mankad. JJ. in Letters Patent Appeal No. 303 of 1977 decided on 6-2-1978 : (reported in : AIR1978Guj96 had not taken into consideration two decisions of the Supreme Court, viz. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Vijay Anand : [1962]45ITR414(SC) and Shankar v. Krishnaji : [197...
Tag this Judgment!Anup Engineering Ltd Ahmedabad and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-1978
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT533(Guj); (1978)0GLR934
1. The same common question of law and interpretation of one and the same notification issued by the Government of India ono April 30, 1975, arise for consideration in each of theses four maters and hence we will dispose of othosse four matters oby this common judgment. 2. The petitioner in eacah of these four matters is, what is known in the trade, as a job manufacturer. The petitioner concerned has a factory of his own, and in this factory, he carris out processesofo manufacture of article and materials brouoght by his or its custsomoers from outside. After the manufacturing process is over, as intended between the parties, the final product is returned to the cusstomer and the petitioner concerned, the job worker, charges for the job work, that is, for the labour and other incidental charges which have been agreed upon between the customer and the job worker. The articles which are brought too the job worker for being subjected to the process of manufacture do not belong to the job ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasuki Exhibitors Vs. Thangadh Gram Panchayat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-1978
Reported in: (1978)19GLR1114
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is an appeal by M/s. Vasuki Exhibitors, who were plaintiffs in the Civil Suit No. 66 of 1972 dismissed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) Chotila. Their appeal, being appeal No. 5 of 1973 also had come to be dismissed by the learned District Judge, Surendranagar. Hence the present second appeal.2. The respondent is a Gram Panchayat at village Thangadh in Surendranagar District. Prior to the year 1972, the panchayat was levying the entertainment tax at the rate of Rs. 1/- per show from cinema theatres. The respondent-panchayat wanted to enhance the tax by Rs. 4/- per show and so followed a procedure of new imposition of tax. It firstly passed the resolution selecting this new rate of tax, invited objections, considered them, then passed a resolution dealing with the objections and deciding to levy the new rate of tax with effect from 1-1-72. So the plaintiff-filed the suit challenging the levy.3. In the pleadings of the plaintiff, the grounds were vaguely stated as follows:...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›