Gujarat Court May 1980 Judgments
Shah Ramanlal Somchand Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR224
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is a petition by one tax payer of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation)'. The petitioner challenges the appointment of the respondent No. 3, one Mr. J.M. Shah as the Deputy Municipal Commissioner of the Corporation. The respondent No. 1 herein is the State of Gujarat which is impleaded as a party respondent because the appointment of the respondent No. 3 as the Deputy Municipal Commissioner was accorded approval by the State Government under certain provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for the sake of convenience).2. A few facts require to be stated. The petitioner claims to be a one-time Municipal Corporator and presently a voter for the municipal elections. He is an ordinary resident within the municipal limits of the Corporation and being a vigilant citizen, he claims to be interested in the fair administration of the second respondent-Corporation w...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Aabedabegum W/O Us Man Aboobakar Mulla Vs. State of Gujarat and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-03-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR177
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. In this group of seven Special Criminal Applications the same grounds of detention based on the same instance were utilised by the detaining authority, namely, the State of Gujarat, against the respective detenu whose case has come up before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of the respective detenue and in view of the fact that common questions of fact and law are involved in each of these cases, we will dispose of all these cases by this common judgment.2. Out of these Special Criminal Applications, Special Criminal Application No. 72 of 1980 has been argued at length before us and in the other Special Criminal Applications the petitioners have urged the same arguments though there is one salient difference in facts between (he detenu in Special Criminal Application No. 72 of 1980 and the rest of the detenues in this case and that difference we will point out in the course of this judgment. Barring that...
Tag this Judgment!Harshvardhatiya Rudraditya and ors. Vs. Jyotindra Chimanlal Parikh and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-1980
Reported in: 1981ACJ277; (1981)0GLR555
Thakkar, J. 1. Who was driving the car when the tragic accident occurred, the owner-driver from whom compensation is claimed, or his friend and co-traveller, Ranvir, who died on the spot and whose dependants claim compensation The owner-driver admits that he was no doubt at the wheel on the ill-fated day at the commencement of the trip but says that he got down from the car and made over the steering wheel to the deceased just before the accident occurred. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has believed this theory and denied compensation. Hence this appeal by the dependants of the deceased which arises in the circumstances outlined hereafter. 2. An application for compensation, claiming a sum of Rs. 75,000, was made by the parents, a 24 year widow, and a posthumous child of one Rudratiya alias Ranvir, aged about 24, who died in the course of a motor car accident which occurred on the night of November 22, 1974, at about 10-30 or 10-45 p.m. when he was travelling in a Ford Cotina car (...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and anr. Vs. Sahkari Khand Udyog Mandli Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Guj102; (1980)2GLR181
S.B. Sheth, J.1. These Civil Applications have been filed by the Union of India and the Deputy Director, sugar and Vanaspati, Government of India, claiming from each of the respondents certain amounts wider the following circumstances.2. Special Civil Applications Numbers 1235 of 1972, 1234 of 1972, 1236 of 1972, 1232 of 1972, 1223 of 1972, 1262 of 1972 and 1233 of 1972, were filed by the present respondents in this Court. In those Special Civil Applications, they challenged the price of sugar fixed by the Central Government at Rs.124.59 p. per quintal for the year 1972-73. They obtained an interim order in all these petitions from this Court by virtue of which the controlled price of Rupees 124.59 p. per quintal was frozen and the respondents who are sugar manufacturers were allowed to sell 'levy' sugar at Rs.150/- per quintal. Obviously, therefore, under the force of an interim order made by this Court in each of those petitions, the respondents sold levy sugar at a price higher than...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Corporation of the City of Rajkot Vs. Sonik Industries, ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Guj1; (1980)GLR838(GJ)
Divan, C.J.1. So far as this Full Bench is concerned, we will only deal with the question arising under Section 77 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. This second appeal first came up for hearing before our learned Brother S. B. majmudar, J. on November 27, 1979. By his order dated on that day he referred the second appeal to a larger Bench forresolving the controversy which arises for decision in the present case. Our learned Brother found that there was an important question of law of general public importance arising in this present proceeding and the decision of the learned single Judge M. U. Shah, J. though directly on the point had not considered all the relevant aspects of the matter and that at present there were Division Bench judgments of this Court, some of which had made certain general observations though not strictly concerned with the main question whieh arose for decision in the present ease and he felt that it was a it case which deserved to be referred to a La...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Etc. Vs. KutubuddIn Isafali Kushalgadhvala Etc.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ908; (1980)2GLR167
M.K. Shah, J.1. These two appeals are filed by the State of Gujarat and the original complainant-food inspector, and are directed against the order, of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kapadvanj in criminal case No. 1618 of 1976 acquitting the respondent-accused of the offences under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ('the Act') read with Rule 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, ('the Rules').2. From the shop of the accused, on 17-2-1976, the complainant food-inspector purchased a sample, for the purpose of analysis, of chilli powder weighing 450 gms., and after following the necessary formalities, divided the same into three parts in three bottles. The accused was prosecuted in receipt of the report of the Public Analyst to the effect that it contained Ash insoluble in dilute HCI at 3.009% instead of the specified percentage of 1.3% under the rules and that it contained oil so...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Shankerbhai Mahijibhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Guj67; (1980)2GLR239
S.H. Sheth, J. 1. All these Petitions are directed against the land acquisition proceedings, Notification undersection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issue - d., on 16th June 1972 and was published in Gujarat Government Gazette-om-13tir July, 1972. It was in respect of four survey numbers with their sub-divisions. Therefore, as many as five petitions have been filed challenging that notification. Thereafter on 11th of April, 1974 Town Planning Scheme in respect of the area in question was finalized and notices to the parties were issued under the Bom bay Town Planning Act. On 11th. July, 1975 declaration undersection 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued and it was published in Gujarat Government Gazette, Extraordinary. on the same an On 15th October, 1979. an addendum to the declaration under S. 6 was issued Prid it was oublished on 27th December. 1979. The addendum was issued because the survey numbers in respect of which the impugned acquisition proceedings were instituted had...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Karim Mahammadbhai Khalipha Vs. Suleman Haji Ismailbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR415
D.H. Shukla, J.1. Suleman Haji Ismailbhai, the respondent in the petition before me, is the owner of the suit premises, wherein the defendant, Abdul Karim Mahammadbhai Khalipha, who is the petitioner herein, is a tenant in the two rooms on the first floor of the building. The respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for the recovery of the demised premises on the ground that the petitioner was a tenant in arrears of rent for over six months. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Baroda, for the reasons stated in his judgment, came to the conclusion that the case before him was covered by Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act and not by Section 12(3)(a) of the same Act and consequently, he dismissed the suit of the respondent so far as the prayer for possession was concerned With the rest of the order of the learned trial Judge, 1 am not concerned.2. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned trial Judge by which the prayer for possession was dismissed, the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›