Gujarat Court August 1979 Judgments
State of Gujarat Vs. Cambay Municipality
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-25-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Guj84; (1980)0GLR440
Bhatt, J. 1-9. (xxxxx).10. Mr. Mehta, however, verv strongly pressed into service the provisions of Section 262 of the Act, sub-section (lY of which is reproduced below:--'262(1). When the State Government is informed, on complaint made or otherwise, that default, has been made in the performance of any duty imposed on a municipality by or under this Act or by or under an enactment for the time being in force, the State Government, if satisfied after due enquiry that the alleged default has been made, may direct the director to fix a period for the performance of that duty'.Relying heavilyupon the general controlling power of the State Government, Mr. Mehta urged that under Section 41 of the Primary Education Act, 1947, it is the dutv of every non-authorised municipality - Cambay municipality is a non authorised municipality and there is no controversy in this regard - 'to Pay annually to every District School Board ....... for the purpose of primary education such proportion of the ra...
Tag this Judgment!Suhrid Geigy Ltd. Vs. Chemical Mazdoor Sabha
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-23-1979
Reported in: (1980)21GLR466
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioner company, by the present. Pe on cTaaenges an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat, in a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by which the Tribunal has declared that the lay-offs of about 215 workers effected by the petitioner company, vide Notices, Ex. 8/1 dated 18-11-74, Ex. 8/2 dated 4-12-1974, and Ex. 8/3 dated 27-12-1974 ware not in accordance with law and, therefore, they were illegal; and also further declared that all the concerned workmen covered by the said lay offs would be entitled to receive full wages for the period for which they were laid off.2. A few facts leading to the present proceeding may now be stated:The petitioner company is registered under the Indian Companies Act and is engaged In the business of manufacturing pharmaceutical and chemicals. It has got its factory at Renofi in Baroda District.3. The respondent is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act and commands memb...
Tag this Judgment!Hirjibhai Haribhai Trambadia Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-21-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR226
A.N. Surti, J.1. The petition is directed against the impugned orders at Annexures 'A' and 'B' to the petition, whereby a declaration was made that the petitioner is disqualified as a Panchayat Member of the Jam Jodhpur Nagar Panchayat under Section 23(i)(g) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, on the ground that the petitioner's daughter was in service of the Boys' and Girls' High school run by the Nagar Panchayat, and hence, the petitioner had interest in the work done by the Panchayat.2. At the relevant time, the petitioner was duly elected member of the Panchayat of the Jam Jodhpur Nagar Panchayat in the elections held in December, 1972. When the petition was filed, it was averred that under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, the petitioner was entitled to continue as Panchayat member for a period of five years till the next elections were held of the Nagar Panchayat of Jam Jodhpur. The petitioner's daughter named Chandrikaben was appointed in the Boys' and Girls' High S...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshman Kumajibhai Barot Vs. Harishchandra Singh and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR563
P.D. Desai, J.1. The petitioner, who is holding the post of Police Sub-Inspector, challenges herein the order of suspension dated July 3, 1979 (Annexure 'A'). The order is passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad and it, inter alia recites that the petitioner was placed under suspension from the date of the service of the order, pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings instituted in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate against him for offences under Sections 307, 506 and 323 or departmental inquiry contemplated against him. The order, in terms, connects the criminal proceedings with an incident which is alleged to have occurred on June 30, 1979 and recites that in connection with the said 'serious misconduct and indiscipline' the petitioner was placed under suspension.2. The order of suspension has been challenged in the petition on diverse grounds but only some of those points were canvassed before me at the hearing Hereinafter I shall seriatim deal briefly with the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Chatrabhuj Narshi and anr. Vs. Nensibhai Shavanjibhai Gohil and a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-1979
Reported in: (1980)21GLR377
B. K. Mehta, J.1. A short but interesting question arises in this revision application preferred by original defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who were respectively original tenant and sub-tenant or assignee from the original tenant, of the shop bearing census No. 4602/1 situate at Kalupur within the city of Ahmedabad. The monthly rent of the premises was Rs. 100/-. The opponents herein, who were the original plaintiffs, filed the present suit for possession against the defendants on the grounds of arrears of rent, bona fide personal use and subletting by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2. The Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad, where this suit was filed, granted the eviction decree on the sole ground of subletting under Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act') since defendant No. 1 Shah Chatrabhuj Narshi (hereinafter called 'the original tenant') had entered into a partnership with 16 other persons fo...
Tag this Judgment!Lekhraj Sabumal and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Guj47; (1979)2GLR125
1. This appeal by two of the original plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, 6th Court, Ahmedabad dated 29th Sept. 1973 in Suit No. 74 of 1970 which was dismissed by the learned Judge.2. Respondent No. 1 is the original defendant-State of Gujarat while respondents Nos. 2 to 47 are original plaintiffs Nos. 3 to 48. The plaintiffs instituted the said suit for a declaration that the notification and the land acquisition proceedings were not binding on the plaintiffs and illegal and they prayed for an injunction restraining the defendant-Government taking possession of the land on which the plaintiffs had constructed their huts and structures and from removing the said constructions, without obtaining orders from the competent Court or without following the required procedure under law.3. It was the case of the plaintiffs that in the land of survey number 62 of Behrampura Ward, Ahmedabad there were huts, rooms and buildings in t...
Tag this Judgment!indequip Engg. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-1979
Reported in: (1980)21GLR722
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. In this case the petitioner challenges the order passed by the respondent herein refusing exemption to the petitioner from the payment of bonus. The order is Annexure E to the petition and is dated May 2, 1979. Paragraph 4 of the order states: 'Now, therefore, the State Government decides not to give exemption under Section 36 of the Bonus Act to the applicant company in the public interest.' In the matter of Baroda Electronics Industries Private Ltd; a similar order in identical terms as Annexure E was before this Court. The High Court dismissed summarily the special civil application filed by the company in that particular case and thereafter, in Supreme Court's C.A. No. 311/789 of 1979, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court, as, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, the order of the State Government refusing exemption to the company under Section 36 of the Payment of Bonus Act, on the face of it, seemed 'to be a mechanical order without applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Overseas Bank, Madras and anr. Vs. Naranprasad Govindlal Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-03-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Guj158; (1980)0GLR132
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The plaintiff firm filed the present suit against the defendants to recover a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on account of damages suffered by it. Indian Overseas Bank is the defendant. The plaintiff's case is that a cheque drawn by it on Indian Overseas Bank, Geeta Mandir Branch, Ahmedabad and payable to m/s. Mysore Commercial Union Limited was wrongly dishonoured on February 11, 1970. The plaintiff also alleged that it had an overdraft facility with the Bank to the extent of Rs. 5000/-. The cheque in which was dishonoured by the Bank was a sum of Rupees 3,916/04 ps.2. In defence it was contended by the Bank that the plaintiff had no overdraft facility and that the cheque was dishonoured because there was no sufficient cash balance in its account.3. The learned trial judge held that the plaintiff had overdraft facility with the Bank and that the Bank had wrongly dishonoured the cheque in question even though the cheque could be honoured within the limits of overdraft facility. He...
Tag this Judgment!Badrising Mishrising and anr. Vs. Pramod Kumar Bhagwatilal Banatwala
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-02-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Guj142
1 to 5 .xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx6. Now, in the first instance, no such point with regard to contributory negligence appears to have been canvassed on behalf of the opponents before the Tribunal and to permit Mr. Pandya to raise that point for the first time in an appeal in this court particularly when the respondent-clamant is not present (though served), would amount to permitting the opponents to put up a new case without granting any opportunity to the other side to meet the same. I am, therefors6 of the opinion that such anew case cannot be permitted to be canvassed before this court in an appeal for the first time, because like any other question involving decision on controversial facts such a case has to be pleaded and proved which is not done in the instant case.7. Again, on going through the, record, I find that there is no room for arriving at such a conclusion -about cantributory negligence ozi the part of the injured scooter driver (claimant) as Mr. Pandya wants me to draw from the ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat and ors. Vs. Pethalji Nathabhai Chawda
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-02-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Guj139; (1979)2GLR1
Divan, C.J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Gujarat and officers connected with Geology & Mining Department of the Government of Gujarat against the decision of A. D. Desai, J: in Special Civil Application No. 1386 of 1974. The controversy between the parties is within a very narrow compass and the whole question turns upon the interpretation of Rule 44 of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules 1966. The petitioner is carrying on the business of quarrying limestones and in this writ petition he has challenged the order dated April 25, 1974 passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Industries, Mines and Power Department, rejecting the revision application filed by the petitioner. There is land bearing survey No. 4 admeasuring 2 acres 29 gunthas of Dungarpur village in Junagadh District. This land has lime stones. On April 1, 1972 the petitioner applied for grant of quarry lease in respect of survey No. 4 of Dungarpur village and by his order dated April 4,1972 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »