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.
Natverlal Jethalal Patel Vs. Kalyansing Bhikhabhai Chauhan and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Guj160; (1979)GLR961
ORDER1-2. *** *** ***3. It is distressing to note that the present suit which was filed in 1974, has not been decided by the learned trial Judge even though five years have passed since then. It appears to me that the suit has been pending not because the learned trial Judge did not have time to decide it earlier and not because further proceedings have been stayed but because of an unwholesome and unhealthy tendency which appears to have developed in Civil Court in the State that once interlocutory orders are challenged in the District Court or in the High Court, irrespective of whether further proceedings have been stayed or not, the suit does not proceed. I see no reason why during the pendency of an appeal or a Civil Revision Application filed against an order granting an interim injection or refusing to grant it, the suit cannot proceed unless it has been stayed by this Court or by the District Court. It is, therefore, necessary to remind all Civil Courts in the State that mere pe...
Gurdipsingh Vs. Chauhan Bhupendra Kumar Udesingh and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Guj44; (1980)1GLR221
M.K. Shah, J. 1. This appeal is by the original claimant in an M.A.C. application No.131 of 1973 wherein, as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- preferred by him, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Baroda by its award dated 28th June 1974, awarded an amount of Rs.26,660/- only.2. (His Lordship after narrating the facts, said:) Mr. R.N. Oza, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that, in the instant case, the learned District Judge constituting the Tribunal erred in taking the impact of the permanent disability as slight discomfort and in not awarding any compensation on the head of loss of earning capacity.3. As per the evidence of Dr. Nagpal, examined at Ex.25, the claimant had (1) fractures of lateral condyle of the right tibia and upper and of the right fibula; (2) fractures of the shafts of the right tibia and fibula and (3) fracture of the nasal bone. He was operated on 30-6-1973. In all two surgical interventions had to be carried out. The doctor examined t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›