Gujarat Court July 1983 Judgments
Smt. Manjulaben Ratilal Navik Vs. State and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-1983
Reported in: (1983)2GLR1505
M.B. Shah, J.1. The detenu's wife has filed this writ of habeas corpus for quashing and setting aside the detention order dated March 18, 1982 passed against Shri Ratilal Devabhai Navik residing at 14-15, Sugam Society, Rander Road, Siirat or at village Dandi, taluka Olpad, district Surat under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA').2. The grounds of detention were also, supplied on the same day i.e. on March 18, 1983. The detention order was issued for preventing the detenu from smuggling goods and transporting smuggled goods. After receipt of the report from the Advisory Board under Clause (1) of Section 8 of COFEPOSA, the detention order was confirmed only for preventing him from transporting smuggled goods. The said confirmation order was passed by the State Government on April 23, 1983.3. As per the grounds of detention, the Customs Officers received the informati...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Naranbhai Motibhai Vs. Baraiya Ashabhai Dhulabhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-18-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR44
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the original complainant against the order dated March 17, 1979 passed by the learned judicial Magistrate, First - Class, Petlad rejecting the complaint of the original complainant on the ground that the complainant had not remained present when the matter was called out. Mr. A.J. Patel, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Magistrate was not justified in rejecting the application for adjournment on the ground of sickness accompanied by the medical certificate issued by a qualified medical practitioner certifying that the accused was suffering from fever and that he required to remain in bed for three days. Mr. Patel has pointed out that the complainant was very vigilant inasmuch as he remained present on every date fixed for hearing and that on the aforesaid date, the complainant was prevented from remaining present in the court on account of the circumstances beyond his control. According to Mr. Patel, the sick n...
Tag this Judgment!Vadhere Devubhai Govindji Vs. Rameshwarpuri Ratanpuri
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-18-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR631
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Wanted a decree of eviction? Get an endorsement of 'refusal' on the registered postal envelope containing notice of demand of arrears of rent and the tenant will be evicted. Is this the position of law or will it be open to a tenant to rebut the presumptions of delivery of notice and or knowledge about the contents of notice arising against him on account of the endorsement of 'refused' on the registered envelope? This question has surfaced for decision in the background of the facts that follow.2. The petitioner-original defendant of Regular Civil Suit No. 8 of 1976 of the Court of Civil Judge (JD), Bhanvad-Jamjodhpur, has preferred this revision application. An ejectment suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff inter alia on the ground that the defendant-tenant was in arrears of rent for a period of more than six months and that despite notice of demand he had not paid the arrears of rent. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, defendant-tenant being not ready and...
Tag this Judgment!Porbandar Nagarpalika Vs. Abdul Shakur Haji Ali Jhaveri and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-15-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR134
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Porbandar Nagarpalika against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Porbandar on February 7, 1979 acquitting the accused for offences punishable under Sections 183(1) to (6) and Sections 178(3) and (6) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963.2. The prosecution case was that the respondent No. 1 original accused in the Summary Case No. 811 of 1970 had illegally constructed a projection in the premises in which he lives as a tenant. The accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code has stated that he had not carried out any construction as alleged and that he was too poor to make any construction in a tenanted premises. The learned Magistrate after recording oral evidence and taking on record documentary evidence decided that the prosecution had failed to prove that the complainant was duly authorised in terms of Section 248(1) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act 1963, herein...
Tag this Judgment!Food Corporation of India Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-15-1983
Reported in: (1983)2GLR1485
M.B. Shah, J.1. This group of Special Criminal Applications raises one common point whether the Food Corporation of India is bound to obtain licence under Section 27 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Rules 56 & 57 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').The Food Corporation of India has filed these Special Criminal applications for quashing proceedings of criminal cases pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khambhat and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baroda, arising from different criminal complaints filed by Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Khambhat and by the Inspector of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Baroda. It is further prayed that a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued against the respondents for not, insisting upon obtaining the licence by the petitioner Corporation from ...
Tag this Judgment!Manjulaben Jayantilal and anr. (Heirs of Deed.) Kakubhai Alias Jayanti ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-14-1983
Reported in: (1983)2GLR1469
A.P. Ravani, J.1. A short question that arises in this revision application is, is it open to the court to pass a decree on a ground which is neither pleaded nor any issue is sought for on it?2. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the suit premises which are residential premises situated at Loharchawl in Jamnagar. The ground of eviction was that the defendant-tenant had sublet the premises and there was non-user of the premises without any. reasonable cause for a period of six months immediately preceding the filing of the suit. It was the case of the plaintiff that defendant No. I had sublet the premises to defendant No. 2 and it was also the case of the plaintiff that earlier the premises were sublet to one Dilip Kumar Mathuradas also who was not joined as a party defendant. The defendants appeared in the suit and resisted the same. The trial court framed the issues as follows:(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has wrongfully sublet the suit premise...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Tran Devadi Mandir Trust and ors. Vs. Dilipkumar Babulal Shah and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-13-1983
Reported in: (1984)2GLR938
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Defraud the Court. See that the tenant succumbs to the pressure of circumstances and gives consent to enter into an unlawful agreement. Hush up the proceedings in Court and get the contract sealed by a super command of the Court. Then raise a plea of estoppel against tenant when he tries to raise a standard rent dispute. Can such a plea raised by a landlord be countenanced by the Court This, in short, is the question posed in these three revisions applications.2. Petitioner No. 1 herein, a Public Trust, is the landlord of three different shops situated outside Sarangpur Gate near bridge, Ahmedabad. Respondents herein filed three different Misc. Applications in the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad and prayed that the standard rent of the suit shops occupied by them be fixed. The petitioners herein appeared in those proceedings and inter alia contended that earlier in Misc. Application Nos. 1346, 1345 and 1379 of 1974 filed by the respective tenants, the standard rent...
Tag this Judgment!Girjashankar Prabhashankar Raval Vs. Manharlal Jetashankar Dave
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-13-1983
Reported in: (1983)2GLR1357
V.V. Bedarkar, J.1. The appellant is the landlord, or to put it in correct term, 'the owner', of the premises of one room given to the respondent. The case of the appellant-plaintiff is that the respondent-defendant is a licensee and the case of the respondent-defendant is that he is a tenant of the said premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 65/-. The appellant's case was that the respondent happened to be an uncle of his son's wife. He was residing in a Boarding House and, therefore, at the instance of his brother, who happened to be the father-in-law of the son of the appellant, the respondent was permitted to reside in the disputed premises as a licensee without recovering any rent from him.2. Before me the following facts are not disputed-(1) that the respondent was staying in a Boarding House; (2) that just at the time of giving the disputed premises for his residence the respondent had recently married; (3) that prior to that the respondent was residing in a Boarding House and was al...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Nazirbhai Kasambhai Vora
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-13-1983
Reported in: (1983)2GLR1495
D.H. Shukla, J.1. The petitioner, the State of Gujarat, has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 7th June 1983 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Criminal Revision Application No. 94 of 1983, whereby he dismissed the Revision Application against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Balasinor, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 52 of 1983 whereby he directed the release of a truck which was seized by the Forest Officer on the owner of the truck Furnishing a surety of Rs. 2, 000/-. But while rejecting the Revision Application, the Appellate Judge increased the amount of surety from Rs. 2, 000/- to Rs. 1, 00, 000/-(rupees one lakh). The appellate Judge, while passing the final order, observed that, 'The truck is put to the constructive productive use by this order instead of it being kept idle by the order of forest officer resulting into deterioration of ...
Tag this Judgment!Champak Vashram Vs. Dbaramsi Pola of Rajkot and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-08-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Guj18; (1983)2GLR1381
Bhatt, J.1. This is an application by Charnpak Vashrarin with the prayer that he be allowed to proceed with the appeal And that the title of the appeal be allowed to be amended so as to read him henceforth -as a person appealing on his own right, he having attained the majority on 27-12-1975 In order to understand a big storm in a small tea cup raised in this Civil Application, the basic facts of this litigation are required to be closely noted, with a sense of anguish in our minds that poor litigants are not properly advised or guided at proper stages in the lower courts. and it is because of lack of such diligence and vigilance on the part of the persons advising them, this sort of unhappy situation develops to the detriment of the litigants- The facts -.Which we narrate below will amply bear out this.2. There was filed a civil suit in the court of the Civil Judge (S. D.) Rajkot, being the special civil suit No. 37 of 1971. The suit had come to be filed in the year 1971 in the name o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »