Gujarat Court December 1982 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.
N.J. Mankad Vs. State and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-1982
Reported in: (1983)2GLR897
B.K. Mehta, J. 1. A point of considerable importance as to the power of the State Government to differ from the recommendation made by the High Court in the matter of grant of notional promotion and payment of monetary benefits in pursuance thereof to a City Civil Judge in exercise of its power under Act. 235 of the Constitution of India arises in this petition. The question arises in the following circumstances:The Petitioner began his judicial career as an Assistant Judge & Additional Sessions Judge in the former State of Saurashtra on November 5, 1948. He was promoted as District Judge and had acted also as a Remembrancer of legal affairs and Secretary in the Law Department in the times of the erstwhile State of Saurashtra in July, 1951. In 1954, the Petitioner requested for his repatriation to the Judicial Service but the then Government of the State of Saurashtra could not spare his services though he was assured that his interest of judicial service will not be jeopardized by the...
Anandilal Kashiprasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR704
A.P. Ravani, J.1. In this revision application the short point which arises is as to on which date the notice as required under Section 78B of the Indian Railways Act was served upon the Railway Administration. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that the goods consigned on August 31, 1972 from Kankaria station of the Western Railway to Nabinagar Road Station on the Western Railway were not at all delivered.2. Therefore the plaintiff had written a letter, Exhibit 30, dated February 26, 1974-being claim notice. Another letter being a post card Exhibit 31 was written on February 26,1973. The letter Exhibit 30 has admittedly reached the Railway Administration on March 1, 1973, that is, one day after the prescribed period of limitation under Section 78B of the Indian Railways Act. However, the controversy pertains to post-card Exhibit 31. This post-card has been despatched on February 26, 1973 and it has reached the Nibinagar post office on February 28, 1973 and the postal mark shows the del...
State Bank of India Vs. Gujarat Oil Engines Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-1982
Reported in: (1983)2GLR1019
R.J. Shah, J. 1. This appeal has arisen at the instance of the original plaintiff as appellant against the original defendants as respondents. The only question to be determined in this appeal is regarding the rate of interest that could be awarded in a mortgage suit from its institution till the ultimate realisation of the entire dues.2. A few facts require to be stated to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties.3. For the purpose of this judgment, original plaintiff will be referred to as the appellant and the original defendants will be referred to as respondents.4. The appellant had filed Civil Suit No. 3894 of 1976 against the respondents. In the said suit, a purshis had been filed by respondents 1, 4 and 5 at Exhibit 30 wherein they had invited a preliminary decree against them and had also prayed that interest be awarded at the rate of 3 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till realisation. On the said purshis, the learned advocate for the remaining respondents ...
Jayantilal Naranbhai Shah and ors. Vs. Dholka Municipality and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-06-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR597
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The petitioners who are residents of Dholka have filed this petition in their capacity as tax-payers challenging the revised octroi schedule whereunder octroi duty on several items is sought to be substantially increased. The facts leading to this petition, briefly stated, are as under.2. The respondent-Municipality passed a Resolution No. 285 dated 1st February 1978 for the upward revision of octroi duty as per the revised schedule appended to Annexure 'A' to the petition. The proposal was then forwarded to the State Government as required by Section 101 (c) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Section 99 of the Act empowers the Municipality to impose certain taxes, including octroi. Section 101 requires the Municipality to observe the preliminary procedure of passing a resolution at a general meeting selecting the tax to be imposed and approving the rules prepared as required by Clause (1) of Section 271 of the Act. The resolution ...
The Anil Starch Products Ltd. Vs. the Gujarat Labour Welfare Board and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-06-1982
Reported in: (1983)2GLR1082
A.P. Ravani, J.1. In all these revision applications, the question that arises is as to what is the nature of the suit filed by the petitioners original plaintiffs and under which provision of the Court-Fees Act, the amount of Court-Fees is chargeable Shortly stated, a pure and simple question of fact arises and that is, read the plaint and reliefs claimed therein and find out what is the subject matter of the suit. The next question is, whether this subject matter of the suit is susceptible to monetary evaluation ?2. The plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and injunction to the effect that certain provisions of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1953 (as adopted and applied by the State of Gujarat) and certain provisions of the Rules framed thereunder are illegal and void and the notice issued by the Labour Welfare Commissioner calling upon them to pay the amount of unpaid accumulation be also declared illegal and void, and further prayed that the defendants be restrained from enfo...
Kantilal Chunilal and ors. Vs. Modasa Nagar Panchayat, Modasa and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-02-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj109; (1983)1GLR537
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The election to the Modasa Nagar Panchayat was held on 10th April 1981. The petitioners are members of the said Panchayat. The first meeting of the Panchayat was held on 18th April 1981 for the election of its Chairman and Vice-Chairman. The respondent No. 2 was elected the Chairman of the said Panchayat at the said election. The next meeting of the Panchayat was held on 18th May, 1981 for the constitution of the statutory as well as other Committees of the Panchayat. At the said meeting the statutory Committees, namely, the Executive Committee as well as the Social Justice Committee and few other Committees were constituted. On the very same day, respondent No. 2 issued a circular calling the meetings of the Committees so constituted for the election of their Chairman on 22nd May, 1981. It appears that in the meantime on 19/20th May, 1981 some of the members of the various Committees so constituted submitted their resignations. On the same day, that is, 20th May...
Manager, Automotive Mfgr. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Kumar Mohanlal Shah and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-02-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR706
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. The petitioner herein challenges the order of the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhavnagar in which the learned Judge has held that the question of Jurisdiction of the Court cannot be tried as preliminary issue because on the averments made in the pleadings it is a mixed question of law and fact and unless the evidence is led it would not be possible to decide as to whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the trial Court. Mr. S.D. Shah, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on Order-14 Rule-2 Sub-rule (ii) of the Code of Civil Procedure to point out that even where there was a mixed question of law and fact as regards jurisdiction of the trial court it could be tried as a preliminary issue.2. The submission of Mr. S.D. Shah is not quite correct in view of the fact that the said Sub-rule (ii) lays down that if the Court is of the opinion that the case or any part thereof can be disposed of as an issue of law on...
Amritlal V. Raichura Vs. Pattani Sidiq Ismail and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-01-1982
Reported in: (1983)2GLR1305
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 24-6-1982 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division Veraval, whereby an application by the plaintiff to bring the heir of defendant No. 3 on record was allowed. The contention raised by the present petitioner is that he ought to have been served with a notice of the application whereby the present petitioner who is the son and legal representative of the deceased defendant No. 3 to give him an opportunity to put up his contentions against the said application. Mr. C. K. Takwani, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the original defendant No. 3 who was the father of the present petitioner had died on 7th January, 1982 and that the plaintiff had filed the application for bringing the heir of defendant No. 3 on record was filed on 17th April, 1982, which was clearly time barred. Mr. Takwani submits that the impugned order of the learned Civil Judge is not tenable for two reasons. Firs...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›