Gujarat Court April 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.
Karadia Jetha Kana, Etc. Vs. Managing Officer-cum-collector and Settle ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-02-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Guj27; (1981)0GLR239
S.H. Sheth, J. 1. These two Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the common order recorded by Mr. Justice J. B. Mehta in Special Civil Application No. 952 of 1974 and Special Civil Application No. 1060 of 1974. The material facts in Letters Patent Appeal No. 160 of 1977 are as follows. Survey Nos. 226 and 121/3 of village Lathodara in- Mangrol Taluka of Junagadh District were received by the original petitioner from Aba Jusab and Osman Suleman in exchange of his lands. The deed of exchange was executed on 27th December, 1950. It was registered. Aba Jusab and Osman Suleman migrated to Pakistan. Therefore, a declaration that the lands in question were evacuee properties was made. It appears that nothing happened thereafter. In January 1971, Mamlatdar of Mangrol deputed an officer to take possession of the lands in question because after holding an enquiry, the Collector had allotted the lands in question to one Tikabai Motumal who migrated from Pakistan to India and who had made a...
Kodavayur Narayan Shastri Sundram Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-02-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR378
M.P. Thakkar, J.(At the admission stage)1. R. &. P is before us. Counsel for the appellant is heard fully.2. A retired Govt. Officer (Ex-Deputy Educational Adviser of the Education Ministry at New Delhi) has been convicted under Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code (and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-) for offering a sum of Rs. 5000/- by way of illegal gratification to an I.A.S. Officer holding the post of Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Surat. It is not disputed (indeed it is admitted) that the envelope containing currency notes of Rs. 5000/- was handed over by the appellant to the Commissioner in his Chamber on that day. His defence is that the Commissioner had misunderstood his motive and purpose and his innocent act of offering the sum by way of a part payment in respect of contribution of Rs. 25,000/- which was offered by him on behalf of the institution represented by him (Saifiyah Foundation) was wrongly unders...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›