Gujarat Court December 1982 Judgments
Bharat Oil Depo Vs. Pari Prafulchandra Kantilal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR620
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. This revision application has been filed by the defendant No. 4 to the Summary Suit filed by the present respondent No. 1 in the Court below.2. The present respondent No. 1 had filed a suit for recovering a sum of Rs. 24, 900/- against respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The present petitioner was impleaded as defendant in the suit, because he was alleged to have been a surety for the amount said to have been advanced by the plaintiff to the defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The learned trial Judge had, after considering the defence and the documentary evidence, come to the tentative conclusion that the defendants had avalid defence and, therefore, he granted leave to defend but imposed the condition that the defendants should deposit a sum of Rs. 20, 901/-. Against this order of imposing a condition of depositing a sum of Rs. 20, 901/- that the present petition is filed.3. Mr. V.C. Desai, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, has urged that once the trial Court comes to the c...
Tag this Judgment!Deendayal Kishanchand and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-14-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1583; (1983)1GLR324
ORDERV.V. Bedarkar, J.1. This petition is submitted with a grievance that the Courts below have committed an error in accepting the charge-sheet and not dismissing the complaint as beyond the period of limitation.2. It is a patent fact that the petitioners-accused are prosecuted for a Prohibition offence, and the complaint was filed on 3-6-1976, while the charge-sheet was submitted on 1-12-1978. The period of limitation for such cases under Section 468 of the Cr. P.C. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') is one year, because the offences with which the accused were charged are offences punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.3. It was the case of the prosecution that two accused, i. e. present petitioners Nos. 4 and 5, who are ladies, were not available to be produced before the Court along with the charge-sheet, even though earlier they were released on bail. Therefore, as the Court refused to accept the charge-sheet unless all the accused are produced, ...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Mirat Wd/O. Mohanlal and anr. Vs. Vyas Prahladji Mohanlal and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-14-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR528
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. In this revision application, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 13th September 1982 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Vijapur, rejecting the amendment application of the petitioners.2. The amendment to the plaint sought by the present petitioners consisted of adding defendants Nos. 3 and 4 whose names and addresses are given in the application and who are said to have purchased the suit fields, according to the plaintiffs, they came to know about the fact of the suit fields having been sold to the two persons who are sought to be joined as defendants Nos. 3 and 4 from the written statement filed by defendant No. 1. In the said amendment application, some portion of the plaint was also sought to be amended; so also the prayer clause was proposed to be amended as a consequential relief.3. Mr. Soparkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the amendment sought has become necessary in view of the averments made in the written ...
Tag this Judgment!Rahulbhai M. Godadhara Vs. Vijay Mafatlal Shah and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-14-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR602
A.P. Ravani, J.1. In a Motor Accident Claims case the petitioner claimant preferred an application to summon a witness and to allow him to be examined on his behalf. The application was submitted at a late stage, that is, at the stage of the argument of the case. This has been rejected by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (No. 3), Ahmedabad. The decision of the Tribunal below Exhibit 128 in Motor Accident Claims Application No. 225 of 1981 is challenged by filing the present Civil Revision Application.2. The petitioner herein is the original claimant who has suffered some injury on account of an accident and for the purposes of recovery of compensation he filed the aforesaid claim application before the Tribunal. It appears that after the evidence of the petitioner was over and after the other side filed pursis to the effect that it did not wish to lead any oral evidence and the date on which the matter was fixed for hearing of the arguments of the parties, the petitioner submitted an...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnuprasad Dahyabhai Brahmbhatt Vs. State and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-13-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR270
V.V. Bedarkar, J.1. This is an application against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kaira at Matar, issuing bailable warrant for the amount of Rs. 1,500/- against each of the accused (present opponents Nos. 2 to 6) though they were accused of an offence of murder.2. The allegations are that the present petitioner had filed a complaint against opponent Nos. 2 to 6 under Sections 307, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the offence of murder of two persons who were allegedly shot dead by Police Officers (the accused). Because the allegations were against the police, as per the grievance of the petitioner, though the complaint was filed before the Police, they asked for Summary and, therefore, he was required to file a private complaint. The learned Magistrate inquired into the matter by taking evidence under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and ultimately came to the conclusion that there was a prima...
Tag this Judgment!Khristi Rajivbhai Fulabhal Vs. Khristi Zaverbhai Mithabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-10-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR530
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. In this revision application, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 13th September 1982 passed by the learned Civil Judge (V.D.), Dakor, in Summary Case No. 79 of 1980 whereby the learned Judge had granted leave to defend on condition that the defendant deposits the entire amount of Rs. 8,000/- claimed in the suit.2. Mr. J.M. Patel, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the order directing the defendant to deposit the entire amount claimed in the suit is unreasonable and it amounts to almost decreeing the suit. There is hardly any ground for Mr. Divetia, the learned Counsel for the opponent, to defend the impugned order. It is quite clear that the Court grants even conditional leave to defend when it finds that there is some plausible ground available to the defendant which he can put in to resist the claim of the plaintiff. When the Court comes to the conclusion that there is some plausible defence, then, it would not be fair or...
Tag this Judgment!Manibhai Babubhai Patel and ors. Vs. Somabhai Chhanabhai Patel and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-10-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR491
S.L. Talati, J.1. The petitioners were the original plaintiffs, before the Mamlatdar and they, along with others, had filed a suit being Suit No. 3 of 1981 under Mamlatdars' Courts Act. Opponents 2, 3 and 5 were also plaintiffs in the said suit. Opponent No. 1 was the defendant in that suit. Opponent No. 5 is described as the heir of deceased Chhanabhai Keshavbhai Patel who was original plaintiff No. 7 before the Mamlatdar in the suit filed under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act. The prayer in this petition is that the Mamlatdar may be directed to decide the case on merits. For the purpose of deciding this petition certain facts are required to be stated and those facts are that the petitioners No 1 to 4, opponent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 and one Chhanabhai Keshavbhai Pntel filed a suit being suit No. 3 of 1981 under Section 3 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act against respondent No. 1. During the pendency of that suit original plaintiff No. 7, Chhanabhai Keshavbhai Patel died and nobody bothered to bring...
Tag this Judgment!S.T. Dasadia Vs. Commissioner, Surat Municipal Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-10-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR770
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is a petition by an employee of the Surat Municipal Corporation, being aggrieved by the Order Annexure-J dated 25-9-1981, stopping his promotion for five years from the day of the issuance of that order. This penalty had come to be imposed on him by the Municipal Commissioner, Surat, under Sections 56(1) and 56(2)(c) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.2. A few facts are required to be stated. On 26-6-1978, the petitioner was given a show-cause notice by the Dy. Commissioner. The petitioner filed his reply Annexure-B dated 12-7-1978. Then a show-cause notice Annexure-C dated 24-8-1978 was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner had filed his reply Annexure-D dated 27-9-1978. This was the preliminary stage of the inquiry and then a regular charge-sheet Annexure-E came to be issued on 16-10-1978, to which the petitioner had filed his reply Annexure-F dated 21-12-1978. Thereafter, the regular inquiry was held and the petitioner had file...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Boghabhai Prajapati Vs. Lalsa Amar and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-09-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR266
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. This revision application is filed by the petitioner against the order dated 5th July, 1982 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner requesting the Court to raise an additional issue regarding illegal licence contrary to the provisions of Section 13(1)(ee) of the Bombay Rent Act.2. Mr. S.V. Raju, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in the plaint the petitioner-landlord had made averment to the effect that respondent No. 1 had inducted respondent No. 2 and both were residing in the suit premises. From this averment Mr. Raju argues that it is open to the Court to raise an issue not only on sub-tenant under Section 13(1)(e) but also regarding illegal licence contrary to Section 13(1)(ee) of the Bombay Rent Act and, therefore, the trial Court ought to have raised both these issues as alternative ones. Mr. Raju has argued that there were sufficient averments before the...
Tag this Judgment!Natverlal Govanbhai Gajjar Vs. Director of Technical Education and anr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR430
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. In this revision application the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 23rd August 1982, passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Surat, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1982, whereby the lower appellate Court had upheld the judgment and order of the trial Court, rejecting the application of the present petitioner for interim relief.2. At the outset, it must be pointed out that in this revision application, a notice was issued by this Court to both the respondents on 10th September 1982. The notice was made returnable on 15th September 1982 (Coram : B.K. Mehta, J.). As the notice was not received back on 15th September 1982, the matter was allowed to stand over to 23rd September 1982. On that day also nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents, hence this Court issued a Rule returnable on 4th October 1982. The said returnable date was extended to 18th October 1982 and on 4th November 1982, the Court (Coram : N.H. Bhatt, J.) directed this matter to sta...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »