Gujarat Court August 1982 Judgments
Savitaben Lagharbhai Vs. Manji Ramji Chavda and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-19-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ598; (1982)2GLR682
S.L. Talati, J.1. Savitaben Laghar-bhai residing in village Sundariyana, Taluka Dhandhuka, District Ahmedabad has filed this petition to obtain the custody of her children Jaya, Nayna and Upendra. The facts which are not in controversy are first required to be stated. Respondent 1 is the husband of the petitioner. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent 1 took place before about 15 or 16 years. The petitioner is the second wife of respondent 1. By this marriage three children are born, two daughters and one son. The eldest daughter is 12 years of age while the second daughter is 9 years old and the youngest son is 5 years old. At the time when this petition was filed on July 8, 1982 all these three children were residing with the father i.e. respondent 1. The petitioner was residing separately and she had filed an application for maintenance under Section 125, Cr. P.C. in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Dhandhuka which was pending. The above facts are adm...
Tag this Judgment!Shantibhai Somabhai Raval Vs. Madhukani T. Shukla and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-19-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ62; (1982)2GLR711
ORDERV.V. Bedarkar, J.1. This is an application making a grievance against issue of process by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Narol, on the strength of the complaint filed by opponent No. 1 Mad-hukant T. Shukla (original complainant) against the petitioner. The case of opponent No. 1 - Complainant was that the petitioner had purchased a tractor from the complainant. As the tractor was not in working order, the petitioner is alleged to have told the original complainant that the tractor was to be brought for repairs, but because the wheat season was going on, he may be helped by giving another tractor. So an unregistered tractor was given to the petitioner. As the petitioner did not return either the old tractor or the new tractor, a complaint was given by the original complainant before the police. It was the grievance of the complainant that the police did not make proper investigation, did not record statements and merely attempted to rely on a counter-foil of the cheq...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Chemical Works and ors. Vs. Gujarat State Financial Corporation ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj104; (1982)2GLR550
P.D. Desai, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order made by the District Judge, Baroda in a proceeding under Sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation Act) for the sale of the property of the appellants specified in the schedule attached to the application. The order is challenged on several grounds. We shall deal with each of those grounds separately in the course of this Judgment.Ground No. 1:--2. In view of Sub-section (4) of Section 3 and. Section 7 of the Gujarat Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Recovery Act'), the proceeding under Section 31 of the Corporation Act could not have been continued and no order for the sale of the property in question could have been passed in such a proceeding.3. Section 3, Sub-section (1) of the Recovery Act, in so far as it is relevant for the present purposes, provides that where any person is a party to any agreement relating t...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Textile Corporation Ltd., Vs. New Jehangir Vakil Mills C ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-1982
Reported in: [1985]58CompCas768(Guj); (1983)1GLR205
A.M. Ahmadi, J. 1. The learned senior standing counsel for the Central Government raised a preliminary objection against the consideration of the proposed scheme on the ground that once the court grants permission under s. 18FA of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, for take - over of the management or control of sick unit, it is precluded from entertaining an application under s. 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, relating to that unit. In order to understand the submissions made at the Bar, it is necessary to examine a few provisions of the Act. 2. The preamble of the Act shows that it was enacted to provide for the development and regulation of certain industries. Section 15 empowers the Central Government to cause investigation to be made in respect of any scheduled industry or industrial undertaking. If, after such investigation, the Central Government is satisfied that action under s. 16 is desirable, it may issue directions to the concerned industrial undertaking...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Charulataben M. Gohil Vs. Surendranagar Joint Municipality and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-1982
Reported in: (1983)1GLR93
V.V. Bedarkar, J.This petition is a grievance of a probationer against termination of her service.1. Petitioner Charulataben M. Gohil was appointed on 15-3-1979 as a Librarian run by respondent No. 1 Surendranagar Joint Municipality, Surendranagar. Initial appointment was for a period of six months on probation. On 26-10-1979 her probation period was extended for six months. Again on 30-9-1980 her probation period was extended for a further period of six months. It is her case that during the above period she worked satisfactorily and there was no grievance. However, in spite of that, by an order dated 12-1-1981 her probation period was extended for six months more. It is the contention that though the earlier period was over on 15-9-1980, and taking six months from that, her period of six months was over on 14-3-1981, but no immediate order was passed extending her probation from 14-3-1981. On 17-5-1981 when She went on duty, she was not allowed to resume duty and, therefore, she wrot...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Naranbhai Jhinabhai, Lrs. Kamalaben and ors. Vs. Patel Gopaldas ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-16-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Guj340
1. This is an appeal by the original plaintiff of the Civil Suit No. 125 of 1969 filed by him in the Court of the Civil Judge (J. D.), Dholka, being a suit for injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from interfering with his possession, which he had allegedly acquired from the two predecessors-in-title as per the agreement of sale, Ext. 129 dated 28-3-69 followed by the regular sale deed, Ext. 130 dated 15-11-69, which was procured by the plaintiff after seeking permission from the competent authority under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Holding Act, 1947, the permission being required because the suit land, originally consisting of two survey numbers, was constituted a block and given block No. 498 as per the provisions of the said Act. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit. So the original plaintiff had filed the Civil Appeal No. 40of 1973 in the District Court at Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol where the learned District Judge came to dismiss the ...
Tag this Judgment!Taramati and Etc. Vs. Mody Bachubhai Sankalchand
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-16-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Guj350; (1982)2GLR731
ORDER1. These three revision applications are filed by the petitioners who claim to be in possession of their respective premises against the common opponent. The three revisions are heard together at the request of the learned Advocates of the parties and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The dispute pertains to the property belonging to one Dahyagar Hiragar. Who had filed Civil Suit No. 66 of 1963 against his wife Bai Savita and his son named Jitendra Dahyagar as well as some other persons who claim to be the assignees or transferees of the said Bai Savita and Jiteindra Dahyagar. The said Suit No. 66 of 1963 was heard and disposed of on 30-11-1967 against which first appeal No. 721/61 was filed in his Court which was also heard and disposed of by the judgment and decree dated 13-4-1973. The judgment and decree of this Court was challenged in the Supreme Court which confirmed the said judgment and decree in 1978 whereby Dahyagar Hiragar was held to be the owner of the sui...
Tag this Judgment!Kamlaben Wd/O Naranbhai and ors. Vs. Patel Gopaldas Venidas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-16-1982
Reported in: (1982)2GLR760
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is an appeal by the original plaintiff of the Civil suit No. 125 of 1969 filed by him in the court of the Civil Judge (J.D.) Dholka, being a suit for injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from interfering with his possession, which he bad allegedly acquired from the two predecessors-in-tile as per the agreement of sale, Ex. 129 dated 28-3-69 followed by the regular sale deed. Ex. 130 dated 15-11-69, which was procured by the plaintiff after seeking permission from the competent authority under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Holding Act, 1947, the permission being required because (be suit land, originally consisting of two survey numbers, was constituted a block and given block No. 498 as per the provisions of the said Act. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit. So the original plaintiff had filed the Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1973 in the District Court at Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol where the learned District Judge came to di...
Tag this Judgment!Anilkumar B. Laskari Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-11-1982
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(Guj)266; [1983]142ITR831(Guj)
Mankad, J.1. The question of law which has been referred to us for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, has to be answered in the affirmative in view of the settled legal position. 2. There was a Hindu undivided family consisting of Shri Hariprasad Durgaprasad Laskari, his son Shri Anilkumar, the assessee (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), and his wife, Vidyaben (mother of the assessee). The assessee married one Jyotiben on May 20, 1956. There was a partition of the properties of the HUF on 24th July, 1956, in which the assessee received shares worth Rs. 25,516 and cash amount of Rs. 75,000. On the next day, i.e., on July 25, 1956, the assessee settled certain properties which included the shares which he had received on the partition as aforesaid and other shares which he had received by way of gift on a trust. He executed a deed of trust settling these propert...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Hamidkhan and Amirkhan Pathan Vs. Manmohansing, Commissioner of ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-11-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2274; (1982)2GLR615
P.D. Desai, J.1. By an order made on May 7, 1982, Annexure 'A', by the first respondent (the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad), the petitioner was detained in the purported exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedabad city. The grounds of detention dated May 7, 1982, Annexure 'C' were served upon the petitioner on May 12, 1982. On May 17, 1982, the second respondent (State of Gujarat) approved the order of detention under Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. The present petition was instituted on May 25, 1982. Rule was ordered to issue on the petition on May 27, 1982 and it was made returnable on June 21, 1982. The petition reached hearing before' this Court on August 6, 1982 and the hearing having been concluded today, it is being disposed of by this judgment.2. The following ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »