Gujarat Court September 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.
Shirazbhai G. Munshi Vs. Ramjuji Gabharuji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-17-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR254
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is a petition by the original defendant of the Summary Suit No. 452 of 1979 in the Ahmedabad City Civil Court, in which the learned City Civil Judge Shri I.V. Shelat passed an order on July 5, 1979 granting conditional leave to defend on his depositing the sum of 25,000/- in cash or by the demand draft within a month from the date of the grant of the leave.2. Being aggrieved by the order dated July 5, 1979 passed by the said Chamber Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, the original defendant has moved this Court by filing the present revision application. The suit in question is filed by the opponent-plaintiff for the realization of Rs. 37,120-17 from the petitioner-defendant on the basis of a writing. The petitioner-defendant resisted the summons for judgment by filing his affidavit, Ex 9. He denied the plaintiff's allegation that there was an agreement to pay the sum of Rs. 37,120-17, but he admitted the agreement for the sum of Rs. 25,000-00 which he had agreed ...
Jayantilal Khetsi Gada Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-14-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR243
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. These three special criminal applications challenge orders of detention passed against the concerned petitioner detenu by the first respondent in each of the petitions, in exercise of powers under Section 3 of The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called the Cofeposa Act). As all the three petitions have resulted out of detention orders based on one and the same incident and as all of them involve similar facts, all the three petitions have been heard together by consent of learned Advocates of both sides and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Respondent No. 1 relies on an incident dated 2nd August 1978 which is said to have occurred near Beyt Island within the jurisdiction of Okha Customs House. It is the case of the detaining authority that a small fire on a vessel near the cremation ground in Beyt Island was detected by preventive officers of Okha Customs House in the early hours of 2nd Augu...
Jayantilal Pranlal Thakore Vs. Shrikant Jasvantlal Thakkar and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-13-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Guj67; (1980)GLR152(GJ)
S.K. Sheth, Ag.C.J. 1. The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants to recover a sum of Rs. 27,600/- which consisted of the prini cipal amount of Rs. 15,0001- and the in terest amount of Rs. 12,600/- from 23rd February 1966 to 23rd February 1975. The principal amount was advanced by the plaintiff to Jaswantlal, the father of the defendants, who was carying on business in partnership in the name and style of 'Central Sales Corporation'. One Sadashiv and another Manubhai were the other partners of that firm. On 23rd February 1966, the plaintiff deposit ed the amount of Rs. 15,000/- with the firm. At that time, Jaswantlal, the father of the defendants, and the defend ants, who are his sons. were joint. On 10th October 1967, partition of the Joint family estate was effected between Jaswantlal on the one hand and his two sons on the other hand. Thereafter, In solvency Petition No. 15 of 1968 was filed against the Central Sales Corpora tion and its partners who included Jaswan...
Merani Rupi Vinza and ors. (Heirs of Decd. Mer Miyajar Kandha) Vs. Mal ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-1979
Reported in: (1980)21GLR615
B.K. Mehta, J.1. A short but interesting question arises s to what is the appropriate article of the Limitation Act, 1963 which is applicable to a suit filed by a wife for reopening the partition effected between her husband and sons where-in complete disregard of her right she was not allotted her share in the joint family properties. The question arises in the following circumstances :2. The pedigree which is necessary to undersrand the dispute involved in this appeal is set out here in below: Viram Kandha = Maliben (D-l) (Plaintiff) Shiya Bhima Miyajar=Rupi (D-2) (D-3) (D-4/1) Nathi Gigi Sarman (D-4/2) (D-4/3) (dead)3. It is common ground that on 4th May 1963 corresponding to Vaishakh Sud 11 of S.Y. 2019, a memorandum recording oral partition effected between Shiya and Bhima, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 herein and Miyajar (now deceased) was executed dividing the joint family properties comprising of as many as seven agricultural pieces of land, four out of which situate within the r...
Hirji T. Sanghavi and ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-11-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ1403; (1979)2GLR171
ORDERV.V. Bedarkar, J.1. In this application the challenge is to a very peculiar practice adopted by the Courts of Magistrates when the Magistrates do not take cognizance of the matter but send it to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').2. Section 156 of the Code confers upon the Police Officer power to investigate cognizable case. It reads:156. (1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.(3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as mentioned above....
The New Swadeshi Mills of Ahmedabad Ltd. Vs. the State of Gujarat and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-11-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Guj119; (1980)0GLR177
Thakkar, J.1. A search for the heart of the problem in this first appeal referred by a Division Bench to a larger Bench reveals that the solution lies in 4he answer to the, crucial, question:-Whether the plaintiff Company which has purchased in 1964 an industrial undertaking that was in existence prior to May 1, 1960 and was manufacturing goods prior to that date can claim exemption under Section 3(2)(vii)(b) of the Bombay Electricity Duty Act which entitles an undertaking established on or after lst May 1960 to claim exemption from payment of duty for a period of five years from 1-1-62 or the date on which the undertaking commences manufacture of goods in case the manufacture of goods is commenced later L e. after 1-1-62?2. A Company known as 'Bharatkhand Textiles .', hereinafter referred to as 'Bharatkhand Textiles', was engaged in manufacturing of textiles. It was manufacturing textiles from before May 1. 1960. In 1963 the Company was involved in financial difficulties. On April 10,...
Textile Labour Union Vs. New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-10-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR216
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. An employee of a textile mill with a blemish free record of 34 years' service, within a short time of his promotion, was served with an order dated June 30, 1976, terminating his employment, issued in purported exercise of powers under Standing Order 23 without complying with the mandatory requirement to record the reasons for such termination in writing. He thereupon approached the Labour Court by way of an application under Section 44(4) of the Industries Relations Act, 1946, made through the Union to which he belonged, namely, Textile Labour Union. The first Labour Court at Rajkot after recording evidence on the issue of mala fides, by its judgment and order at Annexure 'A' dated April 10, 1976 rejected the prayer for reinstatement of the workman concerned but directed that the mill should pay gratuity, retrenchment compensation, and notice pay as also one month's wages. Both the sides were dissatisfied by the said order and approached the Industrial Court of Guja...
B.R. Acharya Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-05-1979
Reported in: (1979)2GLR557
P.D. Desai, J.1. The petitioner was, at the material time, working as Superintendent and Probation Officer at the Observation Home, Surendranagar. A charge-sheet dated October 14, 1974 was served upon him by the Director of Social Defence. Three charges were levelled against the petitioner and they related to his misconduct in not living in the Government premises in the Observation Home where he was required to stay, shortage of foodgrains which was detected upon personal inspection, and his conduct in making representations to higher authorities otherwise than through proper channel. The petitioner filed his reply to the charge-sheet and gave his explanation. By an order passed by the Director of Social Defence on May 19, 1975, the charges levelled against the petitioner were held to have been proved and the following final order was passed:Two increments of Shri B.R. Acharya, Superintendent of the Observation Home of Surendranagar are withheld with future effect and he is transferre...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›