Gujarat Court April 1982 Judgments
H.T. Gursahaney Vs. State and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-30-1982
Reported in: (1982)2GLR526
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. Video game machines have been installed by the petitioners in their parlours run in different names, such as 'Dizzyland', 'Wonderland'. etc. Admission to there parlours is unrestricted and free of cost. In other words, no fee is charged by the proprietors of the parlours for admission to the parlour. Video game machines have been installed in these parlours and any person who desires to play the electronic game can use the machine by dropping two fifty-paise coins in its slot. It is not as if any performance appears en the screen of the machine as soon as the coins are dropped in the slot of the machine. A player who desires to use the machine must activate it by either pressing the push buttons or the lever provided for the same. Once the machine is activated the human mind is pitted against the computer-mind and the battle of wits ensues. If the player is able to manipulate the lever or the push-buttons by sharp reflexes so as to beat the computer-mind, the human mi...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Keshavlal Barot Vs. Rasiklal Somalal Pandya
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-27-1982
Reported in: (1982)2GLR120
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is a revision application by the original defendant of the H.R.P. Suit no. 3662 of 1981 pending in the court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad. The opponent Rasiklal S. Pandya has filed the said suit, alleging that this petitioner-defendant-landlord had rented the premises to him in March 1974, that the petitioner-landlord was threatening him directly and indirectly for the purpose of securing his eviction and the plaintiff, therefore, sought a prayer that the defendant be restrained from taking possession of the rented premises otherwise than in due course of law and also be restrained from causing any obstruction in the enjoyment of the rented property by him. The suit was pending for the purpose of filing the reply of this petitioner. Then the original plaintiff filed an application. Ex. 16, for adding one Hargovan Nathuram Barot as the defendant no. 2, without seeking any relief against him. The basis of this application is that as per the telegraphic information r...
Tag this Judgment!Ajarambhai and Muljibhai anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-21-1982
Reported in: AIR1984Guj7
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. In Motor Accident Claim Application No. 453 of 1978 the Claims Tribunal at Nadiad awarded a sum of Rs.14,000/- with proportionate cost and interest at 6 % per annum from the date of the claim application till payment or realisation to the parents of the unfortunate victim of the accident .The Claims Tribunal further directed that the amount should be divided equally between the claimants. Against the-said award made by the Claims Tribunal First Appeal No. 775 of 198o has been preferred and the same has been admitted to hearing. In the said appeal on the Civil Application an act interim stay was granted on condition that the appellants deposit -the entire amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal in the Tribunal within four weeks from the said order. We were told by Mr. N. S. Desai the learned Advocate, appealing for the original claimants, that pursuant to the said order the amount, of Rupee's 14,000/- together with interest and proportionate cost has been deposited in th...
Tag this Judgment!Muljibhai and anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-21-1982
Reported in: 1(1984)ACC172; (1982)1GLR756
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. In Motor Accident Claim Applicant No. 453 of 1978 the Claims Tribunal at Nadiad awarded a sum of Rs. 14,000/- with proportionate cost and interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim application till payment or realisation to the parents of the unfortunate victim of the accident. The Claims Tribunal further directed that the amount should be divided equally between the claimants. Against the said award made by the Claims Tribunal First Appeal No. 775 of 1980 has been preferred and the same has been admitted to hearing. In the said appeal on the Civil Application an interim stay was granted on condition that the appellants deposit the entire amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal in the Tribunal within four weeks from the said order. We were told by Mr. N.S. Desai, the learned Advocate appearing for the original claimants, that pursuant to the said order the amount of Rupees 14,000/- together with interest and proportionate cost has been deposited in the Claims T...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Surabhai Mafatbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-21-1982
Reported in: (1982)2GLR596
B.K. Mehta, J.1. This appeal, at the instance of the State Government, is directed against the judgment and order of the City Civil Court Ahmedabad, dated February 27, 1980, granting declaration that the notice for summary eviction issued by the City Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad, purporting to act under Section 202 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') from the land of S. No. 518 situated within the revenue limits of village Vadaj, Ahmedabad Taluka, admeasuring about acres 19-02 gunthas, is bad in law and void, inasmuch as Section 202 of the Code being corresponding law stood repealed in light of the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Public Premises Act') which repealed not only the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 but also any other corresponding law for eviction of occupants from the public premises. In order to apprecia...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkant Tripathi Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-13-1982
Reported in: (1982)2GLR644; (1983)ILLJ452Guj
1. The petition was filed by the officer of the Central Bank of India praying that he be deemed to have been promoted and to give him all retirement benefits accordingly. In the departmental proceedings against the petitioner the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority has punished the petitioner with penalty of withholding of promotion under Regulation 4(C) of the Central Bank of India, Officers Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976. .. .... ....16. Even a bare look at the above extracts from the proceedings and the orders will be sufficient to show that the whole enquiry has gone off the tangent. The charge was that the petitioner did not effect inspection. The evidence in the from of TA bills showed that he had effected inspection. So an attempt was made to spin a new charge without any attention of the petitioner being specifically drawn to it and the attempt is pitiable also. The MR alleged that the petitioner himself had not submitted the reports but submis...
Tag this Judgment!Sinha Watches (India) P. Ltd. Vs. Gujarat State Financial Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-1982
Reported in: [1985]58CompCas489(Guj); (1982)2GLR561
Majmudar, J. 1. The petitioners, M/s. Sinha Watches (India) (P.) Ltd., and its managing directors, challenge by this application an order passed by me on June 30, 1981, in Company Petition No. 10 of 1981 which was filed by the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to get appropriate orders as of this court for winding up petitioner No. 1 company on the ground that the said company was unable to pay its dues. The order which I passed on June 30, 1981, in the said Company Petition No. 10 of 1981 requires to be reproduced at this stage as under : 'The opponent company has shown no cause. It is ordered to be wound up. Provisional liquidator to be appointed as official liquidator. Costs to come out of the assets of the company.' 2. By way of the present application, it has been contended that petitioner No. 2, who is the managing director of the company, was at the relevant time in Tihar Jail and was not served on behalf of the company and was not in the know of winding-up proceedings which were ...
Tag this Judgment!Naranbhai Nathabhai Koli Vs. Modhia Panalal Maganlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-1982
Reported in: (1982)2GLR98
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is a revision application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act filed by the original defendant-tenant of the Regular Civil Suit No. 104 of 1976 decided in his favour by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dohad, whose judgment had come to be set at naught by the learned Joint District Judge of Panchmahals at Godhra in the landlord's appeal No. 12 of 1979 in the District Court there. Being aggrieved by the said order of eviction, the tenant has filed the present revision application.2. A few facts which are held as established and which could not be controverted deserve to be specifically noted in serial order:(1) The tenant had agreed to pay Rs. 16/- per month as the contractual rent.(2) He had not paid rent from 1st of May, 1973, except for the sum of Rs. 100/- which the learned appellate Judge himself has given credit of in paragraph 12 of his judgment.(3) The landlord had given the notice on 25th February, 1976 to the tenant under Section 12(2) of ...
Tag this Judgment!Jhala Mansangji Kalyansangji and ors. Vs. Mahobatsang Madarsang Jhala ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj75; (1982)2GLR171
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioners who are residents of village Nana Anklewalia in Lakhtar taluka of Surendranagar District, have preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to challenge the appellate order passed under the provisions of the Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act, 1976 by the appellate authority confirming the original order passed by the Debt Settlement Officer, Surendranagar in favour of respondent No. 1. A few facts leading to this petition may be stated at this stage. 2. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 6(1) of the Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act, 1976, (herein-after referred to as 'the Act') before the debt settlement officer Surendranagar on the basis that he is a marginal farmer within the meaning of the term given in the said Act The said application was registered as case No. Adesh, Lakhtar 18.93 and it was filed against petitioner No. 1 Mansangji Kalyansang and two others namely Piribhai Tarabhai and Hir...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Dhirajlal Chhotalal Thhakar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-1982
Reported in: (1982)2GLR376
A.N. Surti, J.1. This Misc. Criminal Application No. 46 of 1982 is filed by be State of Gujarat for getting the delay condoned in filing the present appeal in this Court. The delay is of 58 days.2. At the time of bearing of this Misc. Criminal application Mr. D.K. Trivedi, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State very rightly agreed that there is a delay of 58 days. When such a fact was pointed out to us, it may be stated that, at the very stage of the admission of this Misc. Criminal Application the matter was placed before my learned brothers G.T. Nanavati and V.V. Bedarkar JJ. and at the very stage of the admission of this Misc. Criminal Application, my both the learned brothers bad invited the attention of the learned Public Prosecutor to see that a proper affidavit is filed in the light of the reported decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh Thakur Singh and Another v. State of Gujarat : 1981CriLJ293 . After having made their suggestion to the State Pu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »