Gujarat Court July 1978 Judgments
Akbar HusseIn Gulam HusseIn and anr. Vs. Appellate Authority for Payme ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-1978
Reported in: (1979)1GLR1
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The first petitioner herein is the employee of the second respondent. The second respondent is the Managing Director of Shri Gandevi Sahkari Khand Udyog Mandali Ltd., Gandevi in Bulsar District. The second petitioner claims to be a trade union and, according to the petitioner, the second petitioner is the approved union for Gandevi Mahal for sugar industry under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. The first petitioner's service came to an end and the question arose of payment of gratuity under the provisions of The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The first petitioner had worked for a total period of 14 completed years with the sugar factory run by the Gandevi Sahkari Khand Udyog Mandali and, according to the contentions urged before the Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he was entitled to gratuity at the rate of seven days' wages for each completed year of service, whereas the workman contended that since he was a permanent workman working throug...
Tag this Judgment!Hakim A. Shah S. Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-20-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Guj194; (1979)0GLR692
1. The principal question urged in this appeal, at the instance of the original plaintiff of Civil Suit No. 1858 of 1970 on the file of City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, relates to the vires of the provisions of S. 47-A inserted by S. 21 of the Land Acquisition (Gujarat) Unification and Amendment Act, 1963 precluding the right to challenge the action of District Magistrate or the Police Commissioner for enforcing surrender of land from a person opposing or impeding in taking possession under the Land Acquisition Act. The question arises in the following circumstances: -The land in question is of S. No. 1331 situate opposite Danapith Fire-Brigade building of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in the city of Ahmedabad. The plaintiff claims himself to be the occupant of the said land, It appears that a Notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on Aug. 30, 1955, and Notification under S. 6 of the said Act was issued on June 25, 1956 for purposes of extension of the office ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Transmerine Shipping Agencies Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-18-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Guj57
M.K. Shah, J. 1. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x2. The suit was for damages for short supply of and damage to the cargo for which an amount of Rupees 21,323.33 paise was claimed. It was the plaintiff's case that defendant No. 1 who were the agents of the owners of vessel IS. S. Gloria agreed to carry the said cargo in bags on or about 7-11-1966 from Guanica to India; and the charter-party, In respect thereof was signed by defendant No. I as agents for the owners of the said vessel; and the same was also signed on behalf of the plaintiff, Union of India by the Joint Secretary and Chief Controller of Chartering, Ministry of Transport, for and on behalf of the President of India The said goods were received on or about 14-12-1966 by defendant No. 2, that is owners of the vessel S. S. Gloria at Port Guanica in the form of cargo of 2,00295 bags of Ammonium Sulphate weighing 10014.750 M. T. gross along with 2000 empty bags for safe carriage to India. A bill of lading was issued on the very...
Tag this Judgment!The Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Saubhagyachand T. Vasa and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-18-1978
Reported in: AIR1981Guj36; (1979)2GLR291
1. A short but interesting question arises in this appeal at the instance of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, which was the defendant in the trial Court, as to whether a trust' under a policy of insurance effected under Section 6 of the Married Women's Property. Act, 1874, for the benefit of minor children of an assured can successfully sue the Corporation for recovery of the assured value of the Policy? The question arises In- the following circumstances:One Hasumukhal Saubhayachand Vasa took out a life insurance policy in sum of Rs, 2 lacs on October 4, 1968, from the Rajkot Division of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The Corporation undertook that If the assured died before the date of maturity, which was October 4, 1093, when the policy was in force, the total amount of' premiums paid would be returned to the person or persons entitled to them in terms of the policy. The sum assured was payable On the stipulated date of maturity it the life assured Was then alive. ...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal Somalal Vs. Kantilal Hargovandas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-13-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Guj50; (1979)0GLR36
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the Wound that the defendant had been in arrears of rent. The suit premises consists of a shop situate at village Alina in Kaira District. It appears that on 7th May 1964 Plaintiff's father purchased from the defendant the entire building of which the suit Premises formed a part. The transaction was evidenced by the sale deed Ex. 18. It appears that it was a sale with a condition to re-purchase. On the same day the defendant executed rent note In favour of the plaintiff's father in respect of the suit premises, which constitute only a part of the property which plaintiffs father purchased. The rent, which was fixed under the rent note Ex. 19, was Rs. 135/- per year. It appears that the defendant paid rent for some time and thereafter became irregular in Payment. Therefore, the Plaintiff served upon the defendant notice determining his tenancy in respect of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Suleman Haji Abdul Satara Vs. Miya Mohmed Haji Pirmohmed Silkwala and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-13-1978
Reported in: (1979)1GLR182
S.H. Sheth, J.1. Respondents Nos. 1 to 11 are the plaintiffs. They are the trustees of a public trust to which the suit premises belong. Respondents 12 and 13 are original tenants. Respondent 14 is the manager of defendant No. 4, who, in his turn, is the petitioner before us. The plaintiffs let out the suit premises to defendants 1 and 2 on 1st July 1966. Defendants 1 and 2 started therein restaurant business. On 10th July 1967, defendants 1 and 2 transferred to defendant 4 their business with stock-in-trade, good-will and tenancy rights in respect of the suit premises. On 26th December 1967, the plaintiffs terminated the tenancy of defendants 1 and 2 on various grounds and thereafter instituted the suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises. The plaintiffs urged before the trial Court several grounds on which they sought possession of the suit premises to which the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 19-17 is applicable. The learned trial Judge negatived...
Tag this Judgment!Uka Amra and anr. Vs. Dhuda Vira
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-11-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Guj42; (1979)0GLR156
1 to 6. xx xx xx 7. This brings me to the second important contention raised by Mr. Chhatrapati. He invited my attention to Illustration (i) appended to S. 7 of the Easements Act, which gives a legislative recognition to the natural right of the sort claimed in this case. The said illustration reads as follows:-'(i) The right of every owner of upper land that water naturally rising in, or falling on such land, and not passing in defined channels, shall be allowed by the owner of adjacent lower land to run naturally thereto.' Placing heavy reliance on that illustration and more particularly on the word 'adjacent' occurring therein, Mr. Chhatrapati urged that the right of discharge of rain water arising naturally in any land is limited only to the adjacent land and the moment somebody else's property intervened, the said right could not be extended to the property beyond that intervening property. He further urged that if there be right, it will be the right of the intervening owner to g...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ganchi Ramanlal K ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-10-1978
Reported in: (1979)1GLR134
S.H. Sheth, J.1. These two appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company in a motor accidents claim case. The facts of the case brief stated are as under:2. On 20th November 1973 a station wagon belonging to Moder Construction Company was proceeding from Dharoi colony to Dharo project site and, amongst others, two employees of the State Government Ramanlal Kantilal and Sevantilal Somchand were travelling by that station wagon. While taking a turn on way, the station wagon fell in the nearby ditch because the driver did not slow down the speed. As a result of this accident, Sevantilal died on the spot, Ramanlal became unconscious and was removed to the hospital where he never regained consciousness and ultimately died on 8th of May 1975. M.A.C.T. Petition No. 19 of 1974 was filed by the heirs of Ramanlal and M.A.C.T. Petition No. 74 of 1974 was originally filed by Sevantilal himself but after his death it was continued by his heirs. Ramanlal's heirs claimed the compensation of Rs. 60...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corpo. of the City of Ahmedabad and anr. Vs. Jyotindra Harip ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-06-1978
Reported in: (1979)1GLR90
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The facts of the case briefly stated are as under: The plaintiff was an employee of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and had been serving in its Transport Department. He was governed by the Standing Orders for workmen employed for clerical and supervisory work. Plaintiff was found to have interpolated something in a tender which was invited for printing passenger tickets. That interpolation was made after the tender was accepted. By that interpolation, wrongful loss was likely to be caused to the Corporation. The Corporation, therefore, instituted an enquiry against him. As a result of the enquiry, his services were terminated with effect from 17th October 1968. He appealed against that order to the Transport Committee of the Municipal Corporation. The appeal was dismissed.2. Thereafter he filed the present suit in which he contended that the termination of his services was made in contravention of the Standing Orders by which he was governed and that was also made in v...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›