Gujarat Court August 1978 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.
Kalabhai Vallabhbhai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-02-1978
Reported in: (1979)2GLR140
ORDER, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Levy Oredr' for the sake of brevity). Thereafter notice of procurement was issude under the Levy Order to the petitioners and others. Petitioners, therefore, filed this petition on 30th Januarty 1975 in a representative capacity under Order J, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code. On 9th December 1976, an application for amendment of the petition was made and it was granted. On 5th April 1977, another application for amendment to the petition was made and was granted. It is that Levy Order which is challenged by the petitioners on several grounds.2. Mr. I.M. Nanavaty who appears on behalf of the petitioners has raised the following contentions:(i) Levy Order is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 3(3A) and Section 3(3B) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.(ii) Paddy is a foodstuff as distinguished from foodgrains. Therefore, Section 3(3B) does not apply to paddy.(iii) Assuming that paddy is a foodgrain and assuming further that...
Mranalini B. Shah and anr. Vs. Bapalal Mohanlal Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-01-1978
Reported in: (1978)19GLR1090
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This appeal by special leave raised a question with regard to the interpretation of Section 12(3) (b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act No. LVII of 1947, which runs as follows:.No decree for eviction shall be passed in any such suit if, on the first day of hearing of the suit or on or before such other date as the Court may fix, the tenant pays or tenders in Court the standard rent and permitted increases then due and thereafter continues to pay or tender in court regularly such rent and permitted increases till the suit is finally decided and also pays costs of the suit as directed by the Court.2. It is not disputed that the expression 'suit' in the aforesaid Clause (b) includes an 'appeal'. The principal question that falls for consideration is, whether the requirement of the latter part of the above-quoted clause regarding payment or tender of rent and permitted increases, regularly, during the pendency of the suit/appeal is-mandatory...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›