Gujarat Court November 1982 Judgments
Bhupendra Muljibhai Shah Vs. Khan Transport Co. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-30-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj190; (1983)2GLR1011
R.J. Shah, J.[Paras 1-22:--****]23. The question that now arises is as to what could be awarded to the claimant on the count of pain, shock suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, considering that in addition to his aforesaid functional disability found by Dr. Nagpal he has also a permanent disablement flowing from his brain injury as stated hereinabove. In this connection, no decision either of the Supreme Court or that of any other High Court of our country has been brought to our notice wherein a similar question had received attention. In the absence of the same, we will need to look into whether similar cases have been dealt with by English Courts. A scrutiny in this connection has shown that such questions have been dealt with by English Couris as per the following tabular statement:Table showing relevant English awards covering the head or pain, shock, and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life in the cases of injured persons who suffer from epileps...
Tag this Judgment!Nadirsha Hirji Baria and ors. Vs. Niranjankumar @ Nireshkumar Dharamch ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-30-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR774
A.P. Ravani, J.1. In this revision applications following three questions have been raised:1. Whether the decree passed on the basis of consent terms admittedly signed by the advocate but not by the party personally can be enfored at law?2. Can the decree, as it stands, be executed or is it merely a declaratory decree which does not confer any right whatsoever on the plaintiffs?3. On admitted facts, whether any contravention of the decree passed by the Court is committed by the defendants?2. A suit being Civil Suit No. 66 of 1980 was filed by the opponents herein (original plaintiffs) in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Navsari, on March 14, 1980, praying for declaration that they had a right of way over the land specified therein and the way was being used for bringing light vehicles like Matador, Tempo, hand-lorry, etc. and further prayed that the defendants be restrained from causing obstruction in their right of way. The petitioners - original defendants appeared in the suit, filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Physical Research Laboratory Vs. Bhat Gopalak and Ganotiyas Sahkari Kh ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-30-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR661
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. This revision application is filed by the Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmebabad, against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Narol, rejecting the application of the petitioner for joining them as party-defendant in the suit between the present opponent No. 1 which is a co-operative society and the opponent No. 2 the State. The present petitioner in its application had pointed out that the subject-matter of the suit included the land which the second Opponent-State had sold to them for which they have paid the full price and that they have been given possession of the land in question by the State. It seems that earlier a suit was filed by the present opponent No. 1 against the State of Gujarat, the present opponent No. 2, in respect of this very land in which the present petitioner Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, was impleaded as party-defendant. While that suit was still pending the present opponent No. 1 has chosen to file this ...
Tag this Judgment!Special Recovery Officer, Land Development Bank Ltd. Vs. Koli Ramshi B ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-29-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR621
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. The petitioner in this revision application is the Special Recovery Officer, Land Development Bank Limited, Una Branch, Una, District Junagadh, challenges the Judgment and order dated 15th May, 1981 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Junagadh, dismissing the appeal filed against the Judgment and order dated 15th February, 1980 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Junagadh, whereby the ad interim injunction granted to the plaintiff by the trial Court was confirmed by the appellate Court.2. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and injunction that the suit property consisting of a field admeasuring 2 acres and 38 gunthas which the plaintiff claims to be of his ownership and that he was in possession of the same. The suit land was mortgaged by Koli Bhikha, the father of the present plaintiff to the Land Development Bank Limited, Una, in the year 1968. The Bank sought to realise the loan amount from Koli Bhikha against the said land whereupon ...
Tag this Judgment!Koli Jagjivan Raja Makwana and ors. Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-29-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR609
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. This revision application is filed against the order of learned Extra Assistant Judge, Rajkot, camp at Gondal, wherein the learned Judge has held that the plaintiffs are liable to pay court-fees on the valuation of Rs. 20,000/- equal to the market value of half the share of the suit land. The learned Judge has come to this conclusion on the basis that earlier there was an agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants whereby the plaintiffs had agreed to sell their half share to the defendants for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. It is claimed on behalf of the State that in the present suit the relief claimed by the plaintiffs is to get exclusive possession of their half share in the suit property and therefore, the proper valuation of the suit property should be Rs. 20,000/-.2. It is quite an erroneous submission because the plaintiffs being the co-owners are already in joint possession of the suit premises and that the sole relief claimed is to separate their share from...
Tag this Judgment!Ali Amad Represented by L. Rs. Vs. Sindhi Ebrahim Kasam and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-24-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj156; (1983)1GLR337
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is an appeal by the original defendants Nos. 1 (1) to 1 (4) and the defendant No. 3 of the regular civil suit No. 87 of 1978 filed by the respondent No. 1 Jbrahim Kasambhai for partition of the properties of one Keshar Ahmed, the common predecessor of the parlies. The learned trial Judge passed the following order:--'It is hereby declared that the pltf. and deft. No. 5 Ismail Kasam each has share of 5.21 Ps. in a rupee in the suit S Nos. 254/1 and 254/2. The branch of Ali Amad (i.e. present defts. Nos. 1A to ID collectively) has a share of 50 Ps. in a rupee in the suit S. Nos. It is further declared that deceased deft. No. 2 Kha-tija has a share of 8.59 Ps. in a rupee in the suit S. Nos. It is further declared that Aba Keshar deft. No. 3 has share of 14,59 Ps. in a rupee in the suit S. Nos. and also that deft. 6 Noorbai and deceased Mariam, the mother of deft. No. 7 each gets 7.29 Ps. in a rupee as their respective shares in the suit S. Nos. Ashabai, the mother of...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Anandlal B. Kothari Vs. Niranjan S. Kothari and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-24-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR618
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. This revision arises out of a litigation which has long history spread over two decades. It pertains to the management of the public charitable trust of hospital situated at Palanpur-District : Banaskantha. There was some dispute with regard to the management of the trust and hence a suit being regular Civil Suit No. 1 of 1962 was filed in the Civil Court at Palanpur under Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. A scheme was framed by the District Court as far back as in 1967 for the management of the Trust. For one reason or the other the scheme could not be put into effect and the matter was fought out both in the Civil Court at Palanpur as well as in this Court. Ultimately the scheme was finally sanctioned by this Court with certain modifications by its judgment and order dated December 19, 1975. Even after the said judgment of this Court the scheme did not come into operation till the impugned order was passed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Chaudhari Ghemerbhai Punjabhai Vs. Chaudhari Babubhai Hemtabhai and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-24-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR605
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. In this revision the petitioner is challenging three orders passed by the learned Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mehsana, passed on the same day i.e., 24th March, 1982 on three different applications - Exhibits 41, 42 and 43 in the suit. When the applicant was in the witness box the petitioner's advocate gave an application Exhibit 41 stating that for the purpose of cross-examination certain certified copies of the documents produced in an earlier suit were necessary and, therefore, the examination may be adjourned for one hour to enable him to obtain the certified copies which he expected to receive in about an hour's time. The learned Judge was pleased to reject the said application on the ground that the next witness was a doctor who should not be sent back at the whim of the advocate. The application for adjournment having been rejected, the learned Judge proceeded with the matter whereupon the learned advocate gave another application - Exhibit No. 4...
Tag this Judgment!Bharvad Deva Sukha and ors. Vs. the Government of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-23-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj165; (1983)1GLR335
ORDERS.L. Talati, J. 1. The petitioners are the residents of village Sayala of SurendranagarDistrict and they challenged the order passedby the Mamlatdar, dated 21-6-1982 and produced at Annexure 'B'. The order is purported to have been passed in accordancewith Section 168 of the Gujarat PanchayatsAct, 1961. It appears that the State Government had issued a notification under Section 168 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961and in accordance with that notificationSection 168 of the Act was extended toSayala gram panchayat area. That notification is produced at Annexure 'A'. Now that,therefore, the State Government which hadthe power to issue such notification hadissued the notification and, therefore, theMamlatdar got the power under Section 168of the Act and in exercise of that power itappears that the Mamlatdar, Sayala passedan order dated 21-6-1982 after recording theevidence.2. Having gone through the order it clearly appears that the Mamlatdar recorded the finding that the total num...
Tag this Judgment!Babubhai Ratnabhai Chavda and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-23-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR697
B.K. Mehta, J.1. This petition pertains to the question of apprehended disturbance of the seniority of the petitioners, who are ex-employees of Mehsana District School Board constituted under the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947, who, on coming into force of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, have become the employees of the Mehsana District Panchayat as prescribed under section 155 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act. The petitioners apprehended that their seniority would be disturbed since the concerned District Panchayat Authorities were trying to give seniority to the primary teachers who have been transferred from other districts which, according to the petitioners, was clearly in violation of Section 155(1)(a) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act. The grievance in this behalf is made in paragraph 18 of the petition, which has been denied by the respondent-Panchayat in the reply affidavit of one Shri L.J. Mehta, who happened to be Under Secretary in Education Department of the State Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »