Gujarat Court December 1982 Judgments
Babubhai Nagindas Shah Vs. State and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-28-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR784
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The petitioner is the original plaintiff who filed a suit No. 530/ 80 in the court of the Civil Judge (S.D.) Nadiad, challenging the legality and validity of an order dated July 22, 1980, passed by the Collector, Kheda at Nadiad, by which it was directed that staircase placed on the western wall of the shop in question be removed. The order appears to have been passed under Section 258 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act. The trial court dismissed the suit and vacated the order of interim injunction restraining the other side from removing the staircase. Thereupon, the plaintiff filed an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 218 of 1982 in the Court of the District Judge, Kheda at Nadiad. In that appeal, he also submitted an application Ex-5 and prayed for an interim relief to the effect that the order passed by the Collector dated July 22,1980 be not implemented during the pendency of the appeal and the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 i.e. Collector and the City Survey Superintendent,...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. New Swadeshi Mills and Etc.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-23-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1268; (1983)1GLR594
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 15-1-1980 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 3, Ahmedabad. Both these appeals are filed by the State. Appeal No. 380/80 is directed against the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitting the accused Nos. 1 and 2 of the offence for which they were charged. Appeal No. 378/80 is directed against the same judgment and order whereby the learned Magistrate has imposed a fine of Rs. 3,000/- on the accused No. 3.2. All the three accused were charged for an offence of contravening the order of the Textile Commissioner bearing No. cc/Tech/ Ahd/41/77/318 dated 11-1-77 whereby the accused were alleged to have failed to produce the quantity of controlled cloth which they were directed to produce during the quarter 1-1-77 to 31-3-77 and thus contravened the provisions of Rule 21-A of the Cotton Textile Control Order 1948 and under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.3. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Maniben and anr. Vs. Manibhai Mohangir Goswami and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-23-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1935; (1983)1GLR394
V.V. Bedarkar, J.1. Petitioner Maniben alias Madhuben has come to this Court with a grievance that the learned Sessions Judge, Baroda has wrongly reduced the amount of maintenance to be paid to her from Rs. 5100/- as ordered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baroda, to Rs. 1800/-. This was done by the learned Sessions Judge on consideration that the application for recovery of amount of maintenance under Section 125(3) of the Criminal P.C. 1973 hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' permits recovery of the amount of arrears of maintenance for one year only. This decision was given on the strength of first proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 125 of the Code. Sub-section (3) of Section 125 of the Code reads as under:125 (3). If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person...
Tag this Judgment!Gunvantlal Maganlal Pandya Vs. Pranabkumar Kamda Kinker Mukharjee
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-23-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR495
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The petitioners who are residents of Ahmedabad challenge the election of the first respondent Shri Pranabkumar Kamda Kinker Mukharjee on the following grounds:(i) the name of the first respondent was wrongly entered in the electoral roll even though he was not 'ordinarily resident' in the Sabarrnati constituency of the City of Ahmedabad;(ii) Rule 13 (2) of the Registration of Election Rules, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the 1960 Rules') is ultra vires the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (hereinafter called 'the R. P. Act, 1950') as well as Article 14 of the Constitution insofar as it restricts the right to challenge the inclusion of a name in the roll of a person whose name is already included in that roll and the requirement of the same being countersigned by another person whose name is already included in that 'part' of the roll in which the name objected to appears;(iii) contrary to Section 19-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Bhavani Industries and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-23-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR664
A.P. Ravani, J.1. All these appeals are filed by the State of Gujarat against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned JMFC, Jamnagar. The Provident Inspector, Rajkot, complainant in all these cases, alleged that the opponent-firm and its partners had contravened the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('the Act' for short) inasmuch as the dues required to be paid under the provisions of the Act and the Schemes framed thereunder were not paid by the opponents-original accused. The order of acquittal has been passed only on the ground that the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Section 468(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was alleged by the prosecution that the establishment made defaults in making payments of the requisite provident fund contributions between the period commencing from September 1973 till part of the year 1976. Complaints in all these cases have been admittedly filed on...
Tag this Judgment!Khodabhai Manibhai Vs. the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj189
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. This Miscellaneous application is filed by the present applicant who is the plaintiff in the suit. The applicant says that when the present suit was called out before the learned Judge, he brought it to the notice of the Court that there was another suit between the same parties and arising out of the same cause of action and hence the present suit should be heard together with the other suit. The learned Judge, according to the present applicant, was pleased to observe that there was no substance in the suit before the Court and that the present applicant-plaintiff should withdraw that suit. In the present application the applicant claims relief that the present suit being Civil Suit No. 2726/81 pending before His Hoh'ble Judge Shri Keshvani of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad should be transferred from that Court to any other Judge in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad on the ground that the learned trial Judge is prejudiced against him and that he would not get a fa...
Tag this Judgment!Sureshbhai K. Desai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1684; (1983)1GLR364
ORDERV.V. Bedarkar, J.1. This petition is filed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari in Criminal Revision Application No. 32 of 1977. Condoning the delay in filing the charge-sheet against the petitioner and setting aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Umbergaon in Criminal Case No. 656 of 1978, which was to the effect that as the charge-sheet was presented beyond the period of limitation, the charge-sheet was ordered to be filed and the process issued against the accused was quashed.2. So far as the facts are concerned they are not disputed, and averments ire made to that effect in this revision petition also. It is a fact that the petitioner-accused was arrested for the com-mission of offences punishable under Section 66 (1) (b) and Section 85 (1) and (2), Bombay Prohibition Act. 1947, and Section 110, Bombay police Act, 1951. The accused was arrested at about 9.30 p. m. on 17-12-1976 on suspicion of having consumed alcohol. B...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Baroda Vs. Manva Bone Mills and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-1982
Reported in: (1983)2GLR1025
R.J. Shah, J. 1. The aforesaid appeals arise from a judgment rendered in Special Civil Suit No. 75 of 1976 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Himmatnagar.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the original plaintiff, namely Bank of Baroda had filed the aforesaid suit against four defendants. Defendant No. 1 was a partnership firm and defendants Nos. 2 to 4 were its partners. There is no dispute that original defendant No. 5 who was a partner of defendant No. 1 firm had retired from the said partnership. The plaintiff bank alleging that there was an equitable mortgage between the parties had prayed for a decree for the principal amount of Rs. 4,01,158.51 due as on September 30, 1976 and also for Rs. 30,772.00 being the amount of interest on the said amount from 1st October 1976 to 22nd December 1976 together with Rs. 829.40 being the insurance charges. The total amount on the aforesaid basis came to Rs. 4,32,759.91 and further running interest was claimed at 16 per ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamad Hanif Usmanbhai Vs. Soni Nurmohamad Usmanbhai and Bros. and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR786
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. Rule. Mr. K.V. Shelat appears and waives notice on behalf of the respondents. The present petition is filed by the original plaintiff against the order dated 1st September, 1982 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, 8th Court, Ahmedabad, rejecting the application of the plaintiff to appoint a Commissioner for recording his evidence at Nagour (Rajasthan) on the ground that the plaintiff is old and suffering from several diseases and hence he was unable to attend the Court at Ahmedabad for giving evidence in the Court. The application was opposed by the present opponent who is the defendant in the suit. The suit is for dissolution and taking accounts of the partnership firm of which the plaintiff and the defendants who are brothers claim to be the partners. The plaintiff had produced before the trial court medical certificate showing that he was suffering from several diseases besides having cataract in both the eyes. The learned Trial Judge rejected the appli...
Tag this Judgment!Ratilal B. Shah and Co. Vs. Pari Prafullchandra Kantilal and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR700
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. This civil revision application is filed by the original defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 against the judgment and order dated 17th August 1982 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Mehsana, granting the defendants leave to defend on condition that they deposit a sum of Rs. 20,901/- in the Court.2. Mr. C.V. Jani, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial Court directing the defendants to deposit Rs. 20,901/- in a suit where the entire claim of the plaintiff is Rs. 24,900/ - is unreasonable and the same deserves to be set aside. Mr. Jani has urged that in their leave to defend, the present petitioners had pointed out to the trial Court that the claim arises out of the amount alleged by the plaintiff to be due at the foot of the account. The defendants have not only challenged the correctness and accuracy of the amounts alleged to have been advanced to the defendants from time to time but also the rate of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »