Gujarat Court June 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.
Narayanrao Vasantrao Kharde and anr. Vs. Shrimati Maharajasaheb Fatehs ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-17-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR370
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is a petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the original defendants of the civil suit no. 1495 of 1972 pending in the court of the Civil Judge (J.D.) Baroda. The petitioner-defendants hereby challenge the order of the learned trial Judge, deleting the issue about their tenancy of the suit land and, therefore, declining to refer the said issue to the Mamlatdar under Section 85A. of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1948.2. A few facts require to be stated. The respondent-plaintiff has filed the said suit for an injunction restraining these petitioners-defendants from interfering with his possession of the suit land, which, according to the plaintiff, admeasures about 37 Bighas. The prayer sought for in the suit is reproduced below from paragraph 11(1) of the plaint, after translating it:Please give a permanent injunction to the defendants to the effect that they should not interfere with or enter the suit land of the plaintiff's ownership and possession or...
Haji Usmanbhai Hasanbhai Qureshi and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-17-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR349
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. All these special civil applications are filed by different groups of persons interested in or connected with in one respect or another with the slaughter of bulls, bullocks and buffaloes. The points arising in these petitions are the same and Mr. Qureshi who is appearing for the petitioners in each of these special civil applications has argued the matters before us on behalf of all of them at the same time and we will dispose of all of them by this common judgment. Special Civil Application No. 185 of 1980 is filed by beef dealers. Special Civil Application No 186 of 1980 is filed by cattle dealers. Special Civil Applications No. 187 of 1980 is filed by dealers in hides and skins. Special Civil Application No. 188 of 1980 is filed by hoteliers or owners of restaurants or eating houses where non-vegetarian dishes are being served. Special Civil Application No. 189 of 1980 is filed by farmers who are interested in selling bulls and bullocks for the purpose of being s...
G.B. Shephard Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR68
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner is working as a Supervisor Instructor in the Industrial Training Institute at Ankleshwar which is an institute under the administrative control of the Director of Employment and Training-respondent No. 2 herein. The next post in the avenue of promotion is that of Foreman which is to be filled in in the ratio of 1:3 by direct recruitment and promotion respectively. According to the petitioner, his confidential remarks upto October 26, 1979 were not such as could be considered to be adverse. According to the seniority list published on July 12, 1977 for the cadre of the petitioner, he was shown at Sr. No. 34 while respondents Nos. 3 to 15 were shown as junior to the petitioner. He was, therefore, entitled to be considered for promotion as foreman. However, the petitioner has not been considered for promotion as a foreman when 16 posts were to be filled in in the said cadre in 1979-80. Respondents Nos. 3 to 15 were promoted to the post of foreman by differe...
K.P. Patel Vs. Gujarat Small Industries Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR202
B.K. Mehta, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is a confirmed Assistant Manager (works) in the employment of the respondent-Corporation, challenges the order of April 22, 1979 Annexure 'K' to the petition of termination of his services passed by the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation, inter alia, on the ground that in effect and substance it was an order of penalty and inasmuch as it was made without giving any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard, it is a nullity. In any case it is assailed as arbitrary and therefore, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. A few facts need be noticed in order to appreciate the challenge to the impugned order.2. The petitioner joined the services of the Corporation as Setter cum Operator in September 1969 on probation for a period of six months with a consolidated salary of Rs. 375/-per month. He was confirmed on satisfactory completion of the probationar...
Delhi Administration Vs. Pratapchand Bachumal Ramchandani and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-03-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR225
A.N. Surti, J.1. This petition is filed by the Delhi Administration (Delhi) under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (which is pari-materia with Section 561A of the Old Code of Criminal Procedure) for expunction of certain remarks or observations made by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baroda while disposing of an application for police custody of the opponents for seven days. Before I mention the facts giving rise to the present petition, I may briefly indicate the position of law in regard to the expunging of remarks made by the subordinate Judges.2. I may briefly refer to the reported decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of The State of Bombay v. Nilkanth Shripad Bhave and Anr. reported in : AIR1954Bom65 .3. In paragraph 2 of the said judgment, it is observed as follows:Therefore, in our opinion, as Section 561A was enacted to emphasise the fact that the High Court has the widest jurisdiction to pass orders to secure the ends of justice, S...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›