Gujarat Court July 1979 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.
Ambalal Jethabhai Patel Vs. Valand Parshottamdas Naranbhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-20-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR51
M.K. Shah, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit fiked by respondent No. 1 original plaintiff, against the appellant-original defendant No. 2, for redemption of mortgage of payment of the mortgage amount of Rs. 900/- in respect of the suit land bearing survey number 971/1 admeasuring 9 acres-1 guntha situate in village Limbasi, taluka Matar, district Kaira. A few facts giving rise to the litigation between parties may be briefly stated.2. A document dated 11th May 1956 purporting to be a document of sale with a right to repurchase, but claimed to be mortgage with conditional sale by the plaintiff was exevuted by the plaintiff on 11th May, 1956 in favour of defendant No. 1 and possession was also transferred to defendant No. 1 on payment of the said amount of Rs. 900/-. The document, inter alia, provided that the land was conditionally sold to defendant No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 900/- and the plaintiff was entitled to get the same reconveyed to him from the said defendant ...
Sakerlal Nathubhai and ors. Vs. Chhotubhai Navalbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-19-1979
Reported in: (1980)21GLR371
B.K. Mehta, J.1. Our learned brother Surti (sic) has referred both these matters to us at the instance of defendant-tenants. Since there is no referring order nor any precise question has been formulated by the learned Single Judge referring the matters to us, we have asked the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents that we may formulate a precise question in these two matters and. give our answer to that question and send both the matters back to the learned Single Judge for disposal on merits. The learned Advocates, appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondents in both these Revision Applications have fairly agreed to the course which we have suggested and, therefore, having regard to the contentions urged before the first Appellate Court, we formulate the following question arising in these references for our opinion:Whether the suit notice is bad in law, inasmuch as the plaintiff-landlord has called upon the defendant-tenant to pay t...
Harishchandra Hotchand Saijani Vs. Syndicate Bank and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-18-1979
Reported in: (1980)21GLR657
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. A loss of even a petty article may understandably cause concern to a Nationalized Bank, true, but should the management feel out-raged and lose sense of proportion when an article of private property of a trifling value (a pant piece) belonging to one of its Assistant Managers is found missing from his residence? Is it such a momentus matter that a Nationalized Bank should expend (waste?) its public time and public funds for setting the machinery of its Law department in motion? And to go to the length of persecuting an employee (a Clerk) suspected of a petty theft notwithstanding an order of acquittal rendered by a competent Court? And must it waste thousands in litigation for this trifling matter of no consequence to the mighty Bank? These reflections are ignited by the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution instituted by a Clerk in a Nationalized Bank in order to challenge the legality and validity of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him ...
Bharat Vijay Mills Ltd.,
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-16-1979
Reported in: [1980]50CompCas7(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J.1. These various applications have been made by different applicants for appropriate orders under Section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The applicants in Company Applications Nos. 172 of 1979, 251 of 1979 and 259 of 1979 have prayed that separate meetings of (1) equity shareholders, (2) secured creditors, (3) statutory creditors, (4) unsecured creditors and (5) workers and employees of the Sidhpur Mills Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') be ordered to be convened to consider and, if thought fit, to approve, with or without modification, the scheme of amalgamation, arrangement and compromise proposed by each applicant. The prayer in Company Application No. 171 of 1979 is that separate meetings of the equity and preference shareholders of the Bharat Vijay Mills Ltd. be convened for the purpose of considering and, if thought fit, approving with or without modification, the scheme of amalgamation, arrangement an...
Behramshaw Hormanshah Bharda and ors. Vs. Dastoorji Hormasdyar Kayoji ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-13-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Guj74; (1980)GLR201
Divan, C.J.1. This special civil application is under Art. 228 of the Constitution and the petitioners herein pray that this Court should call for the record and proceedings of Spl. Civil Suit No. 72 of 1978 from tke Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Valsad and dispose of the said suit or. in the alternative, that this Court should determine the issue as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India and the after return the said case to the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Valsad with a direction to dispose of the matter in the light of the judgment of this Court on the said issue, The petitioners herein are some of the defendants in the suit pending in the Cot-ut of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Valsad. Respondents Nos. 6 to 11 are also defendants in the said suit. Respondents Nos. I to 7 in this special civil application are the plaintiffs in the said. suit. The facts leading to the present special civil application are as follows: On August 23, 1971. one ...
Patel Jaikrishna Motibhai Vs. Patel Ishwarbhai Fakirbhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-12-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Guj34; (1979)2GLR70
M.K. Shah, J. 1. The appellant is the original plaintiff whose suit for a declaration that the partition effected by the plaintiffs father defendant No. 2 on 10th July, 1956 under which the suit land came to the share of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff, therefore became the landlord of the suit land on and from 10th July, 1956 and for a further declaration that defendant No. I tenant was not a deemed purchaser of the suit land and the award passed in the proceeding under S. 32G of the Bombay Tenancv and Agricultural Lands Art, 1948 ('the said Act') is illegal and without jurisdiction was is dismissed by the learned Second Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) Baroda the suit being special civil suit No 184 of 1071.Paras 2 to 4 f [x x x x]5. Mr. B. H. Mehta, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-plaintiff submits that the lower court erred in dismissing the suit on the ground that it had no jurisdiction. In the submission of Mr. Mehta, the jurisdiction of the civil court w...
Meherabanoo GulamhussaIn Vadivala Vs. the Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-10-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Guj35; (1979)2GLR84
M.K. Shah, J.1. This is an appeal by the original plaintiff whose suit against the Union of India for a declaration that the order dated 18th April 1966 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 29,926.14 paise passed by the Regional Settlement Commissioner in proceedings under Section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 ('1954 Act') was illegal ultra vires and without jurisdiction and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from recovering the same as arrears of land revenue, was dismissed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, (6th Court), Ahmedabad by his judgment and decree dated 13th October. 1972.2. After 25th April, 1962, the suit property considered as an evacuee property by virtue of its having been already declared as an evacuee property under the 1950 Act, was acquired under the provisions of Chap. 3 of the 1954 Act so as to form part of the compensation pool for rehabilitation of persons displaced from Pakistan and accordingly the su...
Jagannath Govind Shetty Vs. Javantilal Purshottamdas Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-09-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Guj41; (1980)0GLR216
Bhatt, J. Paras 1 to 8 (xxxxxx)9. The next and moot question that arises for our consideration is whether the license in question was lawfully terminated by Jayantilal. At this stage we would like to resolve the belated controversy half-heartedly sought to be raised by Mr. Qureshi regarding the correct nature of the relationship between the parties. Mr. Qureshi read Section 52 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 before us and urged that under, Section 52 of the Act, Jayantilal was not the owner of the immovable property viz. the suit premises and, therefore, he could not grant license of the same to Jagannath. Section 52 reads as follows:-'52. Where one person grants to another, or to a definite number of other persons, a right to do, or continue to do, in or upon the immovable property of the grantor, something which would, in the absence of such right, be unlawful, and such right does not amount to an easement or an interest in the property, the right is called a license'.Mr. Qureshi e...
Sardarsinh Bharatsinh Rana Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-09-1979
Reported in: (1980)21GLR665
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. An employee of the Western Railway who retired on July 31, 1975 has been obliged to approach this Court by way of the present petition in view of the fact that some 2 years after the competent authority had sanctioned grant of superannuation pension of Rs. 379/- along with the amount payable by way of pension relief, it was modified to his detriment by impugned order at Annexure 'B' dated June 7, 1978 whereby the pension was reduced from Rs. 379/- to Rs. 320/- along with the pension relief admissible as per rules. In other words, the amount of pension was reduced by Rs. 59/- per month as per the impugned order. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order and has contended that there was no legal justification for reducing the amount of pension determined earlier by the competent authority as per order Annexure 'A', dated December 15, 1975. The petitioner has also made a grievance in respect of leave and other benefits and two other g...
Hitendrakumar Thakordas Raval and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-05-1979
Reported in: (1980)21GLR83
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The petitioners herein have challenged notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by which certain has along with the lands of the petitioners were sought to be acquired the purposes of the Gujarat Housing Board, which is the third respondent in this special civil application. The petitioners are owners of lands bearing survey Nos. 586/2 admeasuring 20639 square metres situated at Adajan in Surat District. These lands are within the limits of the Surat Municipal Corporation. With the development of the surrounding areas, several buildings have come up in the vicinity of the lands of the petitioners. Many co-operative societies, such as Kalpna, Riverside, Ravi Park, Sneb, Smruti, Sangna, Gandhinagar, Society for the staff of Bank of India, Vandna, Anand Kunj, Samarpan, etc, have constructed buildings in the late 1960s in the vicinity of the petitioners' lands and it is the contention of the petitioners that their lands are situated in a we...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »