Gujarat Court February 1983 Judgments
The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad Vs. Bhagvandas Paru ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Guj1; (1983)1GLR763
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The respondent claims himself to be a tenant in the open plot being Final Plot No. 461 of Ellis bridge Town Planning Scheme No. 3 within the city of Ahmedabad. It appears that the Appellant Corporation, original defendant, had issued a notice dt. Aug. 6. 1969 in exercise of its powers under S. 260(1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (here after referred to as 'the Corporation Act') calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why the structure which he had put up should not be removed since it was put up without the necessary permission under the Corporation Act. The plaintiff by his reply of Aug. i4, 1969 submitted the cause which did not impress the Corporation with the result that by the notice of Aug. 30, 1969 which was served upon the plaintiff on or about 1st Sept. 1969, the plaintiff was called upon to remove the structure within three days of the receipt of the notice failing which the Corporation would take appropriate action to remove the...
Tag this Judgment!Ganeshbhai Gangabhai Harijan Vs. District Magistrate Banaskantha and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-1983
Reported in: (1983)2GLR1016
D.C. Gheewala, J.1. As both the petitioners have been detained by a preventive detention order and as both the petitions raise a common question, they are being disposed of by us by a common judgment. The petitioners were holding licence for distributing foodgrains at their fair price shops at village Bharavda District Banaskantha. It was found that on 8-12-1982 the petitioners in between themselves obtained 90 bags of wheat from the government Civil Supplies Godown and instead of carrying those bags to their respective fair price shops, transhipped those bags to Radhanpur and disposed of the same through one Mehta & Co. in open market and they were purchased by one Rajeshkumar Vardhilal Akhani. Complaints were received from the villagers and upon investigation it was found that the petitioners in order to destory the evidence of what they had done, purchased 90 bags from various other institutions, loaded them in a truck and tried to cover up the loss which would have been detected in...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Kusum NitIn Diwanji and anr. Vs. Gujarat Secondary Education Boar ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-1983
Reported in: (1983)2GLR978
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. Petitioner No. 2 who is a minor challenges in this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, his result in the subjects of Mathematics, Chemistry, Physics and Biology obtained by him in the higher secondary certificate examination held by the respondent board in April 1982. Petitioner No. 1 is the mother of minor-petitioner No. 2.2. In order to appreciate the nature of the grievances put forward by the petitioners, it is necessary to note a few relevant facts. Petitioner No. 2 appeared at the higher secondary certificate examination conducted by the respondent board in April 1982 from Baroda centre through Vidyakunj English Medium Higher Secondary School, Baroda. Petitioner No. 2's seat number was B-20068. He had appeared in the said examination in science stream. The respondent board is a statutory board which is entrusted with the function of conducting examinations of higher secondary standards as per the provisions of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Dhuli Wd/O Narsibhat Chhotalal and ors. Vs. Bai Ichha Wife of Soma ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-1983
Reported in: (1983)2GLR1227
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. This revision application has been placed before me vide the orders of Honourable the Chief Justice under certain unfortu-nate circumstances which will be presently stated by me.2. This revision application arises under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act. It has been filed by the petitioners-original defendants who are aggrieved by the decree for possession passed against them by the Small Cause Court at Baroda and as confirmed by the appellate court. The decree for possession is passed under Section 13(1)(hhh) of the Bombay Rent Act. This revision application reached final hearing before late A. N. Surti, J. on 9-2-1983. After hearing the learned Advocates of both the sides, Surti, J. dictated an oral order in the court to the stenographer. Under the said order, the revision application was dismissed. Rule was discharged, but the respondent-landlady was directed not to execute the decree for possession for a period of three ...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Shukla and ors. Vs. District Judge
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR117
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. Rule: Mr. M.A. Panchal appears and waives notice for the respondent.2. This is a petition filed by the four petitioners against whom a departmental inquiry is ordered. The departmental inquiry is to be a joint inquiry. The petitioners contend that they would be prejudiced by the joint inquiry. Hence they pray, inter alia, for an order directing separate inquiry for each one of the petitioners.3. Mr. M.A. Panchal, the learned Counsel for the respondents states that in principle the respondent has no objection to holding separate inquiry for each one of the petitioners, but he submits that prima facie there is nothing to show that the petitioners would be prejudiced by the joint inquiry. Mr. I.S. Supehia, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners will not be able to cross-examine separately and independently every witness who is examined at the inquiry. Mr. Supehia also points out that it may be that each one of the petitioners may have to cr...
Tag this Judgment!K.G. Jani Vs. State Bank of Saurashtra
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-1983
Reported in: (1983)2GLR1145
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. Rule. Mr. G. N. Desai appears for the respondent and waives notice.2. In this petition the petitioner is challenging the order passed against the petitioner retiring him compulsorily from the service of the respondent Bank. There was a departmental inquiry held against the petitioner wherein he was found guilty of charges levelled against him and was ordered to be dismissed from the service on the basis of the finding of the Inquiry officer. The charge levelled against the petitioner was that he had converted the medical bill of Rs. 35/- into Rs. 1535/- by adding the figures '15' before the figure '35' in respect of the reimbursement of the medical bill and had claimed the higher amount. The petitioner had earlier filed writ petition No. 4331/82 in this Court challenging the aforesaid order. At the hearing of the said petition, it was pointed out that the petitioner had alternative remedy available to him in filing an appeal to the appropriate authority. Consequently...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bihari Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-1983
Reported in: [1985]58CompCas6(Guj)
Mehta, J. 1. By the group of these two petitions, this court has been moved to accord its sanction under s. 391(2) read with s. 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, to the scheme of amalgamation of Maneklal Harilal Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the transferor company') with the Bihari Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the transfer company'). At the outset, it should be noted that this is not the usual amalgamation of a sick unit which is non-viable with a healthy or prosperous unit. This is a case which is precisely the reverse of it which is an instance of 'takeover by reverse bid'. This is a scheme whereby the entire undertaking of the transferor company is to be merged and vested in the transfer company. I will consider at the appropriate places as to whether this peculiar feature of the scheme has any bearing on the larger question as to whether the court should or should not accord its sanction to the scheme in question. It would be profitable to briefly adver...
Tag this Judgment!Surti Cloth and Printing Works and ors. Vs. the Ahmedabad New Cotton M ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Guj193; (1983)2GLR1006
R.J. Shah, J.11-14. xxxxx15. This leads me to the question regarding quantum of damages. Encroachment on property by itself is seldom unintended. At is root there is a deep eeated feeling of lawlessness. Persons who indulge in encroachments have less respect for law and Courts and are confident that they can handle all situations. In rare cases encroachments can also be unintended and under a mistake.xxxxx16. So far the measure of damages in such cases are concerned it hardly needs to be emphasised that the measure can never be as to what would have been the amount if similar parcels of land were let out under an agreement between the parties. Encroachment on land essentially means taking of actual possession of land without the consent of the owner and to his exclusion. If premium is not to be put on encroachment and if encroachments are to be discouraged then damages will have to be assessed taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects. Besides trespass on land continues as long a...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Lakhiram Shivram and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-1983
Reported in: (1983)2GLR1190
M.P. Thakkar, C.J.1. In an appeal memo filed by opponent No. 1 Lakhiram Shivram in the Court of City Sessions Judge at Ahmedabad (Criminal Appeal No. 173/81) imputations were made against the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who bad decided the case (Summary Case No. 313/81 decided on 27th August 1981 giving rise to the appeal) in the course of which he had convicted the said Lakhiram Shivram of an offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and imposed a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of which to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days more. The imputations were such which would amount to criminal contempt as defined by Section 2(c)(i) reading as under:2(c)(i) 'criminal contempt' means the publication (whether by wards, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which:(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or...
Tag this Judgment!Ratilal Hiralal Patel Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-1983
Reported in: (1983)1GLR701
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioners who were in Government service and who have now retired. They are eligible for pension under a scheme of the State Government previously in force. The contention raised by the petitioners in this petition is that the State Government has evolved a liberalised scheme of pension for its superannuated employees by various resolutions and that the petitioners are entitled to get the benefits thereunder. The State Government has by its resolution No. PCR/5175/ 29/M dated 29-10-1975, and resolution No. NVN. 1079/1688-P dated 5-7-1979 and resolution No. NVN-1079/ 1598-P dated 12-7-1979 brought about certain liberalisation in the. pension of its employees. In the aforesaid resolutions the Government had mentioned the dates on which those resolutions were to come in force which may for the sake of convenience be referred as cut-off dates. In the case of first resolution dated 29-10-75 the cut off date was specified as 1-1-1973. By the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »