Gujarat Court July 1982 Judgments
Mukundlal Nanalal Chanawala Vs. Bhagvatsing Dhansing Gadaria
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-1982
Reported in: (1993)1GLR423
C.K. Thakker, J.1. This Revision Application is filed by the petitioner-tenant against the decree for possession passed by the trial Court in favour of the opponent-landlord and confirmed by the appellate Court.2. To appreciate the controversy in question, few relevant facts may now be stated. The opponent is the original plaintiff, who is the landlord and the petitioner is the original defendant, who is the tenant of the suit premises. The suit premises consists of one room admeasuring 10' X 7' on the ground floor and another room having the same measurement on the first floor situated in Bharuch. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 481 of 1975 in the Court of Civil Judge (J. D.), Bharuch against the defendant to recover possession of the suit premises, inter alia on the ground that the defendant had acquired suitable residence; the suit premises had not been used by him for a period of more than six months from the date prior to the filing of the suit; there was change of user...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Textile (Guj.) P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-1982
Reported in: (1982)2GLR392
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioners who are original accused in criminal cases Nos. 167 and 168 of 1981 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th court, Ahmedabad, have filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), praying for quashing these proceedings arid the processes issued therein against the petitioners on the ground that these proceedings are ex-facie not maintainable.2. The impugned criminal proceedings as filed against the petitioners refer to certain alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Respondent No. 2 herein who is the minimum wages inspector has filed the complaints against the petitioners on that ground. These complaints have resulted into the aforesaid two criminal cases against the petitioners. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate has issued process to the petitioners in these cases. The petitioners' con...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Amthibai Wd/O. Jesangbhai Nathubhai Vs. Patel Shankerbhai Purshot ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR170
B.K. Mehta, J.1. This petition, at the instance of a widow-landlady is directed against the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN. B.A. 518 of 1976 of March 25, 1977 reversing the concurrent findings by the subordinate authorities that the respondent was not the tenant of four pieces of land of Section Nos. 117, 278, 279 and 375 situate within the revenue limits of village Vijapurda in Chanasma taluka of the Mehsana district. The sole ground on which the subordinate authorities, namely, the Agricultural Lands Tribunal and the Deputy Collector, had held against the respondent that he was not the tenant was that he happened to be the uncle-in-law of the widow-landlady and, therefore, a member of the family with the result that he was not entitled to claim the status of a tenant within the meaning of Section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). It is this order of the Tribunal which is the subjec...
Tag this Judgment!Mangalprasad Jethalal Upadhyay Vs. Thakkar Ananji Ranchhoddas and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-22-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ309; (1982)2GLR607
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The facts leading to the present Revision Application briefly stated are as under:The petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhachau, complaining of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. In that complaint which was lodged on 29th Nov., 1978 the petitioner did not name the accused presumably because at that point of time he was not aware as to who was responsibly for the infringement of his registered trade mark, Messrs Hiralal Parbhuram & Sons are the owners of the trade mark 'Hiralal Chhap Yeola Beedi No. 501'. The petitioner is an employee as well as a power-of-attorney holder of the said firm owning the trade mark. The allegation in the complaint was that some person was responsible for manufacturing beedies of inferior quality and selling them by affixing labels deceptively similar to the label which was a registered trade mark of the afo...
Tag this Judgment!Himatlal Maganlal Vs. Rameshchandra Natverlal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj7; (1983)1GLR256
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the original defendant No. 1 of the Civil Suit No. 2306 of 1969 decreed by toe learned Judge of the City Civil Court, 2nd Court, Ahmedabad in favour of the present-respondent No. 1, the original plaintiff, who had succeeded to get a declaration from the learned Judge that the document of sale dated 19-6-1951, Ex. 74 on the record, which was executed by the defendant No. 2, his father, in favour of the defendant No. 1 (the present appellant), who is his uncle, was to the extent of his l/4th share, not binding on the plaintiff. As a corollary, the learned Judge further declared that the plaintiff was entitled to receive 1/4th share from the income of the property, which admittedly was let out on long term basis on earlier occasion in favour of the original defendant No. 3, fee New Asarva ., Much was liable to pay only Rs. 1,041/- as the annual rent.2. The plaintiff's case was that the said sale deed executed by his father, the defendant No....
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Rameshchandra Shambhubhai Yadav Vs. Dhirajgavri W/O Dr. Rameshchan ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-1982
Reported in: (1982)2GLR359
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioner husband has filed this application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter called 'the Code') requesting this Court to stay further proceedings in criminal Misc. application no. 106 of 1982 filed by the respondent No. 1. wife in the court of the Chief J.M.F.C., Rajkot under Section 125 of the Code.2. It must be pointed out at the outset that this revision application as such is not maintainable as it is directed against an interlocutory order passed by the learned trial Magistrate refusing to stay further proceedings in an application under Section 125 of the Code which is pending in his court. When this hurdle was realised by Mr. Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioner, he made an oral request to permit him to convert this revision application into a special criminal application. 1 have granted him the said permission and accordingly this application is ordered to be treated as a special criminal application unde...
Tag this Judgment!Mukhi Tapoobhai Keshavji Vs. Gondal Municipality
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-20-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj47; (1983)1GLR340
S.L. Talati, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment renderedby the Civil Judge (S. D.), Gondal in Special Civil Suit No. 9 of 1971 decided on 31-12-1974. The facts which gave rise to the filing of this appeal may be briefly stated as under:--The original plaintiff who is the appellant is a partnership firm and it is carrying on the business of fruits and vegtables at Gondal. The respondent --Gondal Municipality had levied octroi duties on various items. However, vegetables were exempted from levy of octroi, The plaintiff amongst other vegetables was carrying on the business of potatoes and onions. Gondal Municipality felt that Octori could be collected on those two items as according to Gondal Municipality potatoes and onions were not vegetables within the meaning of their octroi rules.2. The plaintiff challenged the contention of Gondal Municipality and filed Civil Suit No. 54 of 1958. In that suit the plaintiff claimed a relief of declaration and prayed that it be declared...
Tag this Judgment!Harnamshi B. Digwa Vs. Thacker Valji Kunverji (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-20-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ604; (1982)2GLR372
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The Food Inspector, Bhuj Municipality, filed a criminal complaint No. 164 of 1979 in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhuj, against the present respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for the commission of an offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on the ground that grams (Chhanadal) were adulterated. In order to lodge a complaint the Food Inspector had sought sanction of the local authority as required by 20 (1) of the Act, That section reads as under:20 (1) No prosecution for an offence under this Act, not being an offence under Section 14 or Section 14-A, shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of, the Central Government or the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf, by general or special order, by the Central Government or the State Government.The prosecution was neither under Section 14 nor Section 14-A of the Act. After the institution of the complaint, the learned Magistrate recorded...
Tag this Judgment!D.B. Shah and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-19-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR319
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The petitioners have moved this Court for appropriate writs, orders and directions to quash and set aside the order of their reversion from the posts of Under Secretary to Section Officer. The said order is dated July 14, 1977, Annexure 'C' to the petition. The grievance of the petitioners is that though respondent No. 2 was promoted alongwith the petitioners in March 1977, and was ranked much below the petitioners in the unconditional select list of Section Officers prepared for promotion to the posts of Under Secretary and which select list is based on the respective seniority of the Section Officers, he was retained as Under Secretary while the petitioners have been reverted. This action of the Government is, in submission of the petitioners, discriminatory and, therefore, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have, therefore, prayed that the impugned order of reversion be quashed and set aside so far, as it affects the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Lakha Mana
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-15-1982
Reported in: (1982)2GLR573
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. In this appeal the State has challenged the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First-Class, Radhanpur in Criminal Case No. 48 of 1979 on 8th May, 1979. The prosecution had alleged that the accused had committed offences under sees 447 & 379 of the Indian Penal Code by illegally entering into the Wada (cattle shed) of the complainant on 29th October, 1978, between 8 hours and 18 hours and had stolen two iron chains which were being used for tethering buffalows. The value of the two chains was said to be Rs. 20/-. The accused was charge-sheeted on 9-1-79 and he entered the plea of not guilty on 6-2-79. The matter came up for hearing on 1-3-79 when the accused was not present, but his Advocate who was present, gave an application for adjournment and hence the matter was fixed for hearing on 1st May, 1979. On that day the accused and his Advocate were present in the court, but the witnesses for the prosecution did not remain present. The court ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »