Gujarat Court December 1980 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.
Palaji Amraji and ors. Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-17-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR783
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. In view of the suggestions made by the Court, the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad has formulated a scheme for permanent lorry-siands at different places in the city and a notice to that effect, after obtaining sanction of the Standing Committee, has been issued and published in JANSATTA Daily of December 16, 1980. The scheme seems to b a reasonable scheme with a view to balance the requirements of the citizens on the one hand so far as use of the public street lands is concerned, and the requirements of handcartwallas and Gallawalas to ply their trade. We must make it clear that so far as handcartwallas who have got hawkers' licences and who are plying their handcarts from place to place are concerned, they are not governed by the scheme as they cannot be said to form any obstruction or encroachment on any public street lands. As regards the other Gallawallas and lorrywallas who keep their Gallas and lorries parked at fixed places for the whole day or a substantia...
Vora Saiyedbhai Kadarbhai (a Partnership Firm) Vs. Saiyed Intajam Huss ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-17-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR596
S.H. Sheth, J.1. This petition raises a number of questions of law of wide importance under The Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act 1976, which came into force on 15th August 1976. The Act wiped off the debts of certain categories of 'debtors' and scaled those of certain other categories Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 claimed to be 'marginal farmers' or 'small farmers' within the meaning of those expressions assigned to them under the Act and applied to the Debt Settlement Officer for extinguishment of the debt which they owed to the petitioner. It is alleged that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 sold off survey No. 368 on 12th August 1977 that is to say, after the Act came into force. On 14th December 1978, the Debt Settlement Officer held that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were 'small farmers' on the appointed day within the meaning of that expression assigned to it under the Act and therefore, were 'debtors' within the meaning of the Act. After having considered the merits of the case, he declared that t...
Food Corporation of India, Ahmedabad Vs. Gurukrupa Transport Corporati ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-16-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Guj269; (1981)0GLR697
1. The appellant herein is the original defendant and the respondent is the original plaintiff. The appeal is against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rajkot, dismissing the application filed by the defendant under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of the suit in view of the arbitration agreement between the parties.2. The facts leading to this litigation are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the Food Corporation of India, the appellant before me, to recover the amount for the bills for services rendered by the plaintiff for transport facilities placed a, the disposal of the defendant by the plaintiff. These transport facilities were rendered by the plaintiff under a contract and the plaintiff also claimed for damages alleged to have been caused to the plaintiff by the alleged breach of the contract on the part of the defendant, The defendant filed an application under Section 34 for stay of the proceedings in view of the arbitration agreemen...
Chandubhai Jematbhai and ors. Vs. Gujarat State Co. Op. Land Dev. Bank ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR807
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs and respondents DOS. 1 to 3 are the original defendants. The State of Gujarat, who is the 4th respondent is the real contesting party in this Civil Revision Application. This Revision Application raises an interesting question of interpretation of Section 6(ix) of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The plaintiffs have filed this suit praying that the attachment which has been levied on the land in dispute does not affect their 5/6th share in the suit land and their contention is that the debt created by the third respondent in favour of the first respondent-Cooperative Bank was not binding on the plaintiff's 5/6th interest in the suit land. The plaintiffs are the five sons of respondent No. 3. It was the plaintiffs' case that the amount for which the land was attached was Rs. 17,870/99 and the land in dispute was worth Rs. 15000/- so far as the market value of the land was concerned. The s...
V.J. Masarwala Vs. P. Sheth and Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR689
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The petitioner before me is the original defendant and the opponent is the original plaintiff. The plaintiff is a partnership firm and it is contended that it has been registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (herein after referred to as the Act). The plaintiff firm filed Summary Suit No. 4508 of 1974 against the defendant in the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad for the recovery of Rs. 2048/ 80 with interest and notice charges against the defendant and the question arises as to whether the requirements of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act were complied within the facts and circumstances of this case. It has been set out in the plaint that the cause of action arose to the plaintiff firm on April 8, 1972. The partnership deed was entered in to prior to 1971 and two persons-Umesh Prahladbhai Sheth and Mehul Prahladbhai Sheth were joined as minors who were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. Out of these two minors, Umesh attained...
Sabarkantha Distt. Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-11-1980
Reported in: 1994(70)ELT526(Guj); (1980)2GLR560
S.H. Sheth, J.1. Sabarkantha District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Sabar Dairy') is the petitioner. It challenges in this petition the demand made by the central excise authorities for payment of excise duty on the whole milk powder produced by it from natural milk. It is not in dispute that the whole milk power is subject to central excise duty under Tariff Item 1B in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Indisputably, this whole milk powder is ordinarily intended for sale. Therefore, the terms of Tariff Item 1B are fully satisfied. 2. Sabar Dairy is not able to sell the entire quantity of whole milk powder which it produces. After the expiry of six months, it cannot be sold in that form in the market. It becomes time-expired. Therefore, such whole milk powder is regenerated into fluid milk by applying a mechanical process to it and skimmed milk powder and butter are produced out of it. It is not in dispute that Sabar...
Shadkaran Sheduram Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-11-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR1143
B.K. Mehta, J.1. Since this group of petitions arises out of identical facts and raises common questions of law, I intend to dispose them by this common judgment.2. Petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 683 of 1980 is Head Constable and President of Police Head Constables Union, Headquarters Ahmedabad and has put in about 36 years of service. He is a Harijan by casts and it is his grievance that respondent No. 2, who is the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Shahibag, had a grouse against him since the petitioner had made an application on 25th February 1980 to the Governor with a copy to the Inspector General of Police about the unseemly conduct of respondent No. 2 in abusing him in the morning of 22nd February 1980 in his disturbed state of mind due to formation of the Union. He alleges that the higher authorities were biased against all those members of the police staff who were associated with the Union activities. Respondent No. 2, therefore, by his order of March 17, 1980 dismi...
A.R. Singh Vs. Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-11-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR876
B.K. Mehta, J.1. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who was Sub-Inspector of Police at Mahamdabad town in Kheda district at all the relevant times, challenges the order of his dismissal passed by the Governor of Gujarat purporting to act in exercise of the powers under Clause (c) of the Second Proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, without holding any inquiry as prescribed under the relevant Act and the Rules since the Governor was satisfied that in the interest of security of the State of Gujarat it was not expedient to hold any inquiry as enjoined by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The impugned order was signed by the Principal Secretary in the Home Department to the Government of Gujarat. The petitioner's main grievance is that the impugned order lacks in bona fides inasmuch as it has been made on extraneous consideration for victimising the petitioner who was the leader of the Police Karmachari Mandal which and pre...
Joshi Jashwant Hariprasad and ors. Vs. Municipal Commissioner and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-09-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR861
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. These four petitions respectively by 9, 13, 8 and 3 petitioners are directed against the selection of clerks to be recruited for the purpose of running the administration of the Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service, hereinafter referred to as 'AMTS' for brevily's sake. These different petitioners are similarly situated in so far as they were about the month of February 1980 were appointed as Clerks admittedly on temporary basis, but they were sought to be reverted to make room for the selectees on the selection panel made by the Transport Manager. The petitioners, therefore, filed at different times these petitions essentially for the purpose of getting it declared at 23-5-80 that the selection list of the Junior Clerks to be employed in the AMTS for appointments of Clerks was bad at law, and the respondent No. 2, the Transport Manager, should be restrained from relieving the petitioners in order to translate that list into reality.2. A few facts require to be stated ...
Bhavansinh Raysinhji Rathod Vs. State Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-1980
Reported in: (1981)0GLR636; (1981)IILLJ265Guj
Bhatt, J.1. This is a petition filed by a State Transport Bus Conductor challenging the order, Annexure 'B' dated 20th June, 1978 passed by the Divisional Director, State Transport Corporation of the Gujarat State. 2. The petitioner had been a conductor serving in the State Transport Corporation for 10 years prior to the institution of the proceedings. He was holding a permanent post. The petitioner claimed that he had at his back an unblemished record of faithful service. The unfortunate incident that allegedly brought about his removal order is stated by him in his petition. On 8-6-1978 he was the conductor in the bus that started its journey from Ahmedabad and was bound for Mitha-Ghoda. A girl named Shakuntala boarded the bus from Sanand. The petitioner did know, because of the rush in the bus, that she was bound not for the terminus of the route. There were about 10 to 12 passengers in the bus after it left Khara-Godha. The petitioner then found that she was to get down at Kharagod...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »