Gujarat Court September 1979 Judgments
Christi Valjibhi Gangubhai Vs. Vinayak Ratanchand Jayram
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-29-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR414
A.N. Surti, J.1. The petitioner Christi Valjibhai Gangubhai of Anand was aggrieved by the impugned judgment delivered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN B.A. 313 of 1975 decided on 21-1-1976, and has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by Mr. Shaikh, the learned advocate for the petitioner, a few relevant facts may be stated.3. The respondent trust viz. I.P Mission Trust Association, I.P Mission Compound, Opposite Mission Hospitals, Anand, district Kaira was owning land bearing Survey No. 2388/A admeasuring 1 Acre and 8 Gunthas situated in village Anand. The petitioner was cultivating the land as a tenant of the said survey number.4. In regard to the said land, the respondent trust had obtained a certificate as provided in Section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. After obtaining the said certificate, the parties litigated upto this Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Muljibhai Hirabhai Vs. Dahyabhahi Dajibhai Patel and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-27-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR303
A.N. Surti. J.1. These two Special Civil Applications are directed by the original defendant No. 1 of Regular Civil Suit No. 18 of 1975 of the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Navsari against the impugned common order dated March, 17, 1976 passed by the learned District Judge, Valsad in Civil Appeals Nos. 4 and 5 of 1975 of his Court.2. The suit was filed by opponent No. 1-Dahyabhai Dajibhai Patel in the Court of the Civil Judge, S.D., Navsari for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and original defendant No. 2 from disturbing his possession of the suit house and lands situated at village Mangrol and village Mimlai. The plaintiff claimed possession of the said properties on the ground that he is the heir of the deceased Jaga Desai who died on or about January 8, 1975.3. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff gave an application, Ex. 5, for temporary injunction and that application after the arguments of both the sides was granted in respect of Nimla...
Tag this Judgment!Cartybon Private Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-27-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR420
A.N. Surati, J.1. The respondents by the impugned notice dated April, 30, 1976 called upon the petitioner Company to pay to them a sum of Rs. 87, 235/- on account of arrears of land revenue as per details given in the notice Annexure 'A' within a period of fifteen days from the date of the service of the said notice to the petitioner Company, otherwise the respondents threatened compulsory proceedings against the petitioner Company for the recovery of the same. The petitioners were aggrieved by the said impugned notice and have filed the present petition in this Court.2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner Company, a few relevant facts may be stated.3. The petitioner Company is registered under the Indian Companies Act and is engaged in the business of manufacturing carbon papers, typewriter ribbons, stamp-pads, etc. and has got its factory in Goa. The petitioner Company is having its branch office in Ahmedabad.4. On May 28, 1973, the petitioner received a tender Inq...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Bharatkumar Premchand Vs. Motilal and Bharulal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-26-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Guj51; (1980)0GLR141
Thakkar, J. 1. Does the law command a purposeless re-enactment of a Court scene by re-recording the evidence of a witness even when the defendant after the setting aside of an ex parte decree refuses to cross-examine the witness upon being offered for cross-examination? Or remains absent? Madras High Court says 'no'. Andhra Pradesh and some other High Courts say 'yes'. A Division Bench has referred the question to a larger Bench to decide with which school we should throw our lot.2. The facts essential for the purposes of resolving the question are few. Appellant-defendant remained absent when the suit giving rise to the appeal reached hearing. The Court recorded the evidence adduced by the plaintiff in his absence, and passed a decree ex parte. The said decree was set aside on the Court concluding that there was sufficient cause for the absence of the defendant. When the matter came up for hearing after the. ex parte decree was set aside, the defendant's counsel was present, but he hi...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Singh Parihar Vs. General Manager, Wester Railway and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-26-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR431
A.N. Surti, J.1. The question which I am required to consider in the present petition is, whether a person who holds a civil post under the Railway Administration can be removed by any authority subordinate to the appointing authority.2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, a few relevant facts may be stated.3. The petitioner was born at Beawar on August 31, 1922, and was holding the post of a watch and ward overseer (now designated as Head Rakshak). He was holding the post of Sub Inspector Security (Grade II) and was sent for training for the said post.4. The Chief Security Officer by his order dated March 3, 1958 promoted the petitioner as Sub Inspector Security (Grade II), Railway Protection Force and was posted at Surendranagar. The Chief Security Officer also confirmed the Petitioner in the said post with effect from September 1, 1960 by an order dated November 8, 1960. He was also promoted Sub Inspector (Grade I) with effect from April 6, 1955 that is the date ...
Tag this Judgment!Pitamber Parshotam and anr. Vs. Lilaben Bhalchandbhai and ors. (Heirs ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-1979
Reported in: (1980)21GLR224
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is the revision application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act by the owners of business premises at Rajkot, who have thrown all moral and ethical standards to wind for the purpose of their selfish ends and had it not been for jurisdictional difficulty raised by them, I would have happily rejected their revision application.2. A few facts requires to be stated. These applicants-landlords had filed in the competent rent court of Rajkot a Regular Civil Suit No. 298/71 against the deceased tenant, Bbaichand Vircbandbhai, whose three sons opponents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are his heirs and legal representatives. The said suit filed by the applicants-landlords in the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rajkot, was for possession of the rended property, godown 22' x 8'.2', on the ground that the premises were reasonably and bona fide required by them for carrying out the repairs which could not be carried out without the premises being vacated. The suit was filed...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Rao Vs. Presiding Officer 1st Labour Court and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR262
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioner is a journalist. He was working at Ahmedabad as a Staff Correspondent of Blitz Publications (Private) Ltd. which is located at Bombay. The petitioner was operating on behalf of his employer throughout the State of Gujarat and more particularly in the City of Ahmedabad. His services were terminated by his employer by order made at Bombay on 10th December 1976. An industrial dispute was therefore raised by the petitioner. It was referred by adjudication under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ahmedabad to the Labour Court at Ahmedabad. It was contended on behalf of the employer before the Labour Court that Gujarat Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the reference. The Labour Court upheld the contention raised on behalf of the employer and held that the reference was not legally maintainable because Gujarat Labour Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain it. According to the Labour Cou...
Tag this Judgment!AshwIn Industries Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Baroda and anr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-1979
Reported in: [1982]50STC322(Guj)
Majmudar, J. 1. A short question which arises for our consideration in this special civil application is as to whether the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax can seek to invoke suo motu revisional powers under section 67(1)(a) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as 'the act', when the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax on a prior occasion had exercised suo motu revisional powers regarding the same subject-matter under section 67(1)(a) of the said Act. 2. A few facts leading to this controversy may now be stated : The petitioner was a partnership firm since dissolved which was carrying on its business in the name and style of M/s. Ashwin Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd. at Samlaya, Taluka Savli, District Baroda. The relevant period for the purposes of this petition is S.Y. 2028. The petitioner-firm was carrying on the business of manufacturing vanaspati, soap, refined oil, etc., at its factory at Samlaya. For the purpose of producing vanaspati, the petitioner-firm used to purc...
Tag this Judgment!Parekh Manharlal Vrajlal and anr. Vs. Binashri Rahimbakhte Adilkhanji ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-18-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR223
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. This petition is preferred by the original decree holder who had filed suit No. 2005 of 1949 in the court of the Civil Judge (J.D.), Junagadh for obtaining decree on the basis of a mortgage deed. Ultimately, the suit came to decreed against opponent No. 1 and 2, original J.D. In execution of said mortgage decree the properties of respondents nos. 1 and 2 were put to auction and the land in question was purchased by opponent No. 3 in a Court auction held by the Executing Court in execution of the decree passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The auction sale in favour of opponent No. 3 was confirmed on 13-1-1978. Opponent No. 3 auction purchaser had purchased the property on a consideration of Rs. 13362.50 and he deposited the said amount in the Executing Court. It appears that after the auction sale was confirmed in favour of Opponent No. 3, the original J.D. opponents Nos. 1 and 2, applied to the Executing Court to stay further...
Tag this Judgment!Mulshanker Kunverji Gor and ors. Vs. Juvansinhji Shivubha Jadeja
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-18-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Guj62; (1979)GLR878(GJ)
S.H. Sheth, J.1. In order to appreciate the question which has been referred to the Full Bench, it is necessary to state a few facts. Plot No. 8 was allotted by Santosh Co-operative Housing Society to one Girish Morarji Mehta. The society constructed houses and the house constructed on plot No. 8 was allotted. by the society to Girish. On 16th December, 1965, Girish applied to the society for transfer of his shares to Juvansinh Shivubha Jadeja - the plaintiff. The society accepted the transfer of the shares and admitted Juvansinh Shivubha Jadeja to its membership. When 'Girish was occupying the house in question, he had let it out to the defendants. Upon transfer of shares by Girish to Juvansinh the plaintiff, the latter claimed to recover from the defendants rent in respect of the suit premises. The defendants did not accept Juvansinh's title as a result of which rent remained unpaid from 1st January, 1966'to 31st October 1967. Notice of demand was served upon the defendants rent also...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »