Gujarat Court October 1979 Judgments
Gulamrasool SarfuddIn Malek and ors. Vs. Dulhanbibi and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-17-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Guj110
Thakkar, J.1. A very serious problem which can make an atheist turn to God in desperation, and demands immediate attention has crossed our path in the course of our search for a solution to the question of law which has been referred to this Full Bench viz. whether in order to avail of the right conferred by Section 4 of the Partition Act of 1893 it is an essential precondition that the claimant must be arraigned as plaintiff and not as a defendant. The problem highlighted is whether the concept of National Integrity notwithstanding, and the constitutional command of equality before law notwithstanding, can the right conferred on a citizen by the very same provision of an All India enactment be availed of only provided he is on the Indian sail at Calcutta but not if he is on the Indian soil at Bombay? Can the meaning and content of an All India statute depend on whether it is being interpreted in one State of India or in another? Can the conscience of India countenance a situation wher...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Tolaram Hariram and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-16-1979
Reported in: 1981ACJ207; AIR1980Guj172; (1979)2GLR371
Nanavatl, J. 1. The question of law, and of some importance, which arises in these revision applications for our consideration is whether a consignor who is not an owner of a part of the goods consigned by him (whom we shall call 'consignor-non-owner' for the sake of convenience) along with his own goods and under the same parcel way bill, is competent to file a suit for recovery of compensation from the Railway administration for loss, destruction, deterioration or damage caused to the goods as a result of delay or detention on the part of the Railway administration in their carriage? This question being common ~to all these revision applications, they are all disposed of together by this common judgment.2. The acts in all these cases are similar; and, therefore, we will refer to the representative facts of Civil Revision Application No. 272 of 1977 wily. It arises out of Regular Civil Suit No. 3963 of 1970 filed in the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad, by M/s.Tolaram, Hariram and K. A....
Tag this Judgment!Chelabhai Nathabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-15-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR452
A.N. Surti, J.1. This petition is filed by a citizen and national of India under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders at Annexures 'A' and 'B' and to direct respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to hold election on the basis of the voters' lists already prepared by the Authorised Officer under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The petitioner also prayed for a direction that respondents Nos. 1 to 4 should hold election from constituency of co-operative societies holding general licences, Unjha to Unjha Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Unjha from the stage at which the election was postponed on October 25, 1978 and October 26, 1978 i.e. and to take poll on the basis of the election process announced in pursuance of the election programme dated August 4, 1978. The petitioner has also pr...
Tag this Judgment!Virendra Dwarkadas Mehta Vs. Rajkamlal Foundry and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-12-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR348
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is a revision application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act by the original plaintiff of the civil suit No. 1199 of 1971 dismissed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) Rajkot, against which this petitioner-plaintiff had preferred the civil appeal No. 121 of 1975 in the District Court, Rajkot where the learned Joint Civil Judge by his judgment was pleased to confirm the decree of dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff's suit was filed for possession of the rented property, namely, the open land by resort to Section 13(1)(i) of the Bombay Rent Act on the allegation that the rented land was reasonably and bona fide required by the plaintiff-landlord for erection of a new building.2. It is no longer in controversy before me that the subject matter of lease is a parcel of land situated on the gondal road in the City of Rajkot. The defendants No. 1 firm, whose partners are the defendants No.s. 2 to 6, had hired the said land for the monthly rent of Rs. 550/-. ...
Tag this Judgment!ibrahim A. Bhikhi Vs. Addl. Development Commissioner and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-12-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR426
A.N. Surti, J.1. The only point which requires consideration in the present petition is, whether the State Government while hearing the appeal under Section 25(2) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has the jurisdiction or the authority of law to grant instalments for the payment of the entire dues by the member of the Panchayat tot he Panchayat or the Panchayat subordinate thereto or whether any instalments of the type mentioned above can be granted to any member for the payment of any sum recoverable from him in accordance with Chapter 41 of the Act.2. In order to appreciate the point canvassed by Mr. Raval, the learned advocate for the petitioner, a few relevant facts may be stated.3. The District Panchayat, Broach by its resolution dated June 14, 1978 disqualified respondent No. 2 as a member of the Broach Taluka Panchayat. Annexure 'A' to the main petition is the copy of the said resolution.4. Respondent No. 2 was aggrieved by the said decisi...
Tag this Judgment!Agricultural Produce Market Committee and anr. Vs. Election Officer an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-10-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR267
A.N. Surti, J.1. In the present petition, the much debated controversial point at the bar is, whether an officer designated as an Authorised Officer by the Director under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') is a thoroughly independent statutory officer to perform his statutory functions as provided in the Rules, or is an officer who is subject to the superintendence and control of the Director and/or the State having regard to Sections 4, 9 and Sub-section (2) of Section 59 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Before I proceed to consider the much debated controversy at the bar, I need hardly emphasise the fact, that in a civilised progressive democratic republic, a free election-a fair election-an election untainted and unstigmatised by any remote or possible pressure or influence from any quarters either from the Superiors or even from social ...
Tag this Judgment!Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-09-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR368
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is a petition by a company styled as M/s. Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd; against the Union of India in the Ministry of Railways, the Joint Director, Traffic (Transportation) Railway Board, the General Manager and the Chief Commercial Superintendent (Claims) of the Western Railways as the four respondents. The petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and seeks a direction restraining the respondents from diverting the coal, which the petitioner-company, from time to time, has taken from the collieries and which is sent to the petitioner through the respondent-railway, being public carriers. A further direction is sought to the effect that the respondents be directed to redivert and deliver to the petitioner-company the coal, which was already diverted by the respondents in favour of other parties as set out in annexure E.2. A few facts require to be stated. The petitioner-company is engaged in the manufacture of cement and for that...
Tag this Judgment!The Rajasthan Golden Transport Co. P. Ltd. Vs. the United India Fire a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Guj184; (1979)2GLR283
ORDER1. The petitioner in both these revision applications is the Rajasthan Golden Transport Company Private Limited. Two suits being Regular Civil Suits Nos. 1265 and 1266 of 1973 were filed by the opponents against the petitioner in the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad. Both these suits were decreed by the learned trial Judge. The petitioner had thereupon filed New Trial Applications Nos. 50 and 51 of 1976 before the Appellate Bench of Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad. They were rejected. Hence these revision applications.2. Both the aforesaid suits were consolidated by the learned trial Judge and they were disposed of by a - common judgment. Similarly, both the New Trial Applications before the appellate Bench of Small, Cause Court were heard together and were disposed of by a common judgment. As the points which arise in these civil revision applications are common, I also propose to dispose of both of them by a common judgment.3. Briefly stated the facts are like this. Opponent No. 2 ...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Kantilal Gordhanbhai Vs. Somabhai Parshottam Prajapati
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-1979
Reported in: (1980)21GLR430
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. These Revision Applications are filed by the original different judgment-debtors raising the question as to whether a decree passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) or by the Civil Judge (S.D.), exercising jurisdiction under Section 28(1) of the Bombay Rent Act could be executed by the Small Causes Court, established in that area subsequent to the passing of the Court, or whether it should be executed by the very Court that passed the decree, namely, the Court of the Civil Judge (J.D.) or (S.D.). Out of the above lot, Civil Revision Application Nos. 1454/78 and 1158/79 are directed by the judgment-debtors against the respective order of the Civil Judge (J.D.) and the Small Causes Court, Surat holding that it has jurisdiction to entertain these Execution Applications. In the rest of the matters, the executing Court as well as the Appellate Court has taken the view that the executing court, namely, the Small Causes Court, of Baroda has got jurisdiction to entertain the Executio...
Tag this Judgment!Surgichem Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-04-1979
Reported in: 1990(26)LC305(Gujarat)
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioner challenges in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India two show cause notices issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Assessment Range-II, Rajkot, under Rule 10A of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as well as the orders of adjudication passed against the petitioner by the departmental authorities under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', and as finally confirmed by the Central Government in revision as per Annexure D to the petition.2. The case of the petitioner is that it is a partnership firm carrying on business of manufacturing Belladonna Plaster 'Porofix', adhesive plaster and porofix corn tapes. The petitioner is a small scale industry manufacturing the aforesaid articles at Rajkot. The case of the petitioner firm is that so far back as in 1962, the petitioner had inquired of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Jamnagar, as to whether surgical dressings were ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »