Gujarat Court April 1983 Judgments
Patel Vinubhai Nathubhai Vs. Thakkar Jayantilal Chhaganlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-29-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Guj86; (1983)2GLR1326
1. In this second appeal the substantial question of law as framed by this court is that when the suit is for a specified amount due at the foot of partnership accounts, whether a decree for rendering partnership accounts could be passed at law without there being any prayer for it in the plaint. The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rupees 5,901.06 P. due to him from the defendant. The said amount was claimed on the basis of the partnership accounts between the parties having been settled and at the foot of accounts a net profit of Rs. 11,702.16 P. was arrived at which was to be equally divided between the Plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant after agreeing to pay to him half the amount of the net Profit at the foot of the accounts had gone back on his words and had failed to pay the amount legally due to him.2. The defendant took up a stand that he was not liable to pay the said amount or any other amount as according to him there was no part...
Tag this Judgment!Niranjan Amritlal Vs. Manharlal Jivanlai Parikh
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-29-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Guj24; (1983)2GLR1308
1. In this second appeal the following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court (Coram: P. D. Desai, J-):'(1) Whether the appellant undervalued the subject matter of the suit for the purposes of court-fees and the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground that it is not filed on payment of proper court-fees.(2) Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.(3) Whether the lower Appellate Court erred in taw in rejecting the appellant's application for amendment of the plaint with a view to impleading parties who were found to be necessary parties.(4) Whether the suit is, barred by law 'of limitation, and,(5) Whether the Appeal before the lower Appellate Court was barred by law of limitation.'2. The first question pertains to the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court-fees. Originally the plaintiff who has 1/10th share in the suit property had filed this suit in form a pauperis; but subsequently he agreed to pay the court-fees and the court granted...
Tag this Judgment!Bipinchandra M. Sheth Vs. Gujarat State Financial Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-27-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR1
P.D. Desai, Actg. C.J.1. On December 29, 1979, the petitioner was appointed as Manager and posted in the Appraisal section of the respondent-Corporation. The appointment was subject to several conditions, one of them being that it was on probation 'in the first instance' for a period of twelve months. By an order made on March 10, 1980, the period of probation was extended upto March II, 1980 and by another order passed on the same day, the petitioner's services were terminated with effect from the next day on account of 'unsatisfactory performance'. The petitioner challenged the termination in a writ petition which was rejected by the learned single Judge at the final hearing. Hence the present appeal.2. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 40 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, the respondent-Corporation has made Regulations called 'The Gujarat State Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1961'. Chapter 11, Section 2 of the said Regulations deals with 'Probati...
Tag this Judgment!The Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Sherabkha Nasharkha
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-27-1983
Reported in: (1983)2GLR1260
R.C. Mankad, J.1. This group of appeals filed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporatio') is directed against a common judgment and order dated December 10, 1982, passed by the Employees Insurance Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as 'E. I. Court'), dismissing its appeals filed against the decisions of the Medical Appeal Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), and the only question which is raised in these appeals is whether the E. I. Court was right in holding that the appeals filed by the Respondents in these appeals before the Tribunal were maintainable and that they were not barred by principles of estoppel or waiver.2. The facts in these appeals are common except for the fact that the percentage of permanent disability or the value of permanent disability suffered by each of the respondents varies. The respondent in each appeal (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent') is an insured person as defined in Section 2...
Tag this Judgment!J. Ladies Beauty Vs. State Bank of India, Ahmedabad and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-20-1983
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas20(Guj)
S.A. Shah, J.1. The applicant is the original plaintiff-partnership firm doing business of ladies hosiery at Ahmedabad. They had a bank account with respondent No. 1 bank, namely, the State Bank of India, which was a current account and which was converted into cash credit account on July 7, 1972. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant issued five cheques prior to July7, 1972, out of which three cheques, which were encashed, were properly encashed but the remaining two cheques issued to one Bombay firm were tampered with and have been encashed not by the payee, though the same were payee's account cheques and the respondent-bank has made the payment of those payee's cheques negligently and carelessly to some third party. The applicant-petitioner, therefore, gave notice to the bank to reimburse the applicant-petitioner to that extent. 2. The plaintiff stated that one cheque dated June 30, 1972, was for Rs.1,596 and the second cheque dated July 22, 1972, was for the amount of...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Maganbhai Bapujibhai and ors. Vs. Patel Ishwarbhai Motibhai and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-20-1983
Reported in: 1985ACJ867; AIR1984Guj69
Majmudar, J.1. These two first appeals arise out of one and the same judgment delivered by the learned Second Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nadiad on 8-12-1980 where by the original claims in special civil suit No. 272 of 1976 for damages came to be partly decreed against the original defendants 1, 2, 3 and 4 out of which original defendants Nos. 1, 2 and (sic) are the appellants in first appeal No. 637 of 1981 while the plaintiff in his turn is the appellant in cross appeal No.1189 Of 1981 wherein he claims larger damages against the concerned defendants. As the plaintiff as well as contesting parties are appellants in cross appeals, we will refer to the parties as the plaintiff and defendants in the same sequence in which they were arraigned 'before the trial court for the sake of convenience in the later part of this judgment. 2. x x x x 3. I. In order to appreciate the main grievance of the contesting parties in the present appeals, it is necessary to note a few relevant fact...
Tag this Judgment!Kanchanlal Brijlal Patel and ors. Vs. Keki Rustomji Davar and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-14-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Guj45; (1983)2GLR1377
ORDER1 to 5. x x x x 6. The powers of the District Court dealing with an election Petition are to be found in S. 14 of the Act. Sub-section (5) deals with various grounds regarding the existence of which the Judge being satisfied, the Judge may set aside the election. Certainly the non-compliance with the provisions of S. 7 (2) of the Act does not fall in any of those grounds there. This brings me to subsection (7) of S. 14 of the Act which is reproduced below:________________________________________________________________________________*Only portions approved for reporting by High Court are reported here.________________________________________________________________________________'(7). If the validity of the election is brought in question only on the ground of any error by the officer or officers charged with carrying out the rules made under sub-section (5) of S. 6 or of an irregularity or informality not corruptly caused, the Judge shall not set aside the election.''Explanatio...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Meghji Dayal by Lrs. and ors. Vs. Patel Jivraj Pragji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Guj32
1. In this second appeal the court had formulated two questions as substantial questions of law. One is pertaining to the adverse possession and the second pertains to limitation. On both these questions the lower appellate court has given a categorical finding holding that the suit was filed within the period of limitation and that the defence of adverse possession was not tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case2. As regards the limitation the lower appellate court has entered into an exercise of surmise as regards the birth date of the plaintiff which exercise was neither necessary nor proper. The plaintiff was a minor and the defendant No. 1 who was the uncle of the plaintiff was cultivating the suit fields which form part of the joint family property. The contention raised before the appellate court and this court was that the plaintiff should have filed the suit soon after attaining majority which was presumed to be in 1966. The plaintiff's attainment of majority was ba...
Tag this Judgment!Babar Manda Vs. Bhima Surji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-1983
Reported in: (1983)2GLR926
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. In this second appeal the question of law formulated by the court is to the effect whether the lower appellate court had committed em error in treating the family arrangement as a partition and in holding that it had done so in violation of Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that by a family arrangement the co-owner had divided the suit fields half to half, each one cultivating his half portion. Such an arrangement is not believed by the court below and the same is contrary to the provisions of Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. Under Section 43 the joint owners of the Agricultural lands have to apply to the Collector for dividing the land. Only after the permission is granted by the Collector for such division and the land is actually divided by metes and bounds that each of the joint owners can be said to be in exclusive possession of his separate portion.Till then, no joint owner can cla...
Tag this Judgment!Usman Rojan Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-1983
Reported in: (1983)2GLR1472
A.P. Ravani, J.1. What should be the approach of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, the ESI Court and other authorities constituted under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act while deciding the question of condonation of delay in filing claim petition and/or appeal before the appropriate authority? Should it be technical and archaic having no regard for the realities of life? Or, should it be informed with the changed values of our society and should have close connection with the realities of life? This question is required to be resolved in this appeal filed by an insured employee who sustained employment injury to his right band thumb and whose appeal has been dismissed by the lower authorities on the sole ground of limitation although it is found that he had a good case on merits.2. The appellant is an insured employee who was working as a weaver in Nagari Mills, a textile mill company and he met with an accident on October 23, 1978 on account of which he s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »