Gujarat Court August 1983 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sabera D/O. Ibrahim Haji Rasul Jujara Vs. Husen Abdul Majid Khatuda an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-16-1983
Reported in: (1984)2GLR1012
A.P. Ravani, J.1. It is often said that human wisdom and good sense has limits. But it appears that technical niceties and ingenuous devices invented and adopted with a view to frustrate the ends of justice are limitless. Why is the judicial system respected Is it because it is capable of upholding technicalities regardless of its consequences in real life These questions arise in the background of the maintenance proceedings instituted by the petitioner-wife whose prayer for enhancement of maintenance has been rejected on hyper-technical considerations.2. Petitioner is the divorced wife of opponent No. 1. The marriage between the parties took place some time in the year 1970. Thereafter it appears that both of them pulled on well together for some time. Out of the wedlock a daughter named Bilkish was born. Within a month or two, after the birth of the daughter, the opponent-husband married a second wife and gave divorce (Talaq) to the petitioner. Sometime in November 1976, the petitio...
Dalsukhbhai Pitambardas and Company and ors. Vs. Agricultural Produce ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-12-1983
Reported in: AIR1985Guj38
Bhatt, J.1. These two Special Civil Applications dealing with a common question of law can be taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. In order to understand the central question of law agitated by the learned counsel appearing in these two matter, a few facts are required to be stated The statute which has been called for consideration here is the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the successor of the corresponding law of the erstwhile State of Bombay, being the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act 19-19. The Commissioner of Baroda division lawfully entitled to exercise the powers conferred on him by sub-s. (3) of S. 4- A of the 19.19 Act was pleased to declare the area within the limits of the Godhra Municipality and the further area within the nadirs of 5 Miles of Godhra taluka as the Market proper. By the notification dated 16th September 1979 issued under the provision of sub-s (1) of S. 5 of the Act the comp...
Dalsukhbhai Pitamberdas and Co. Vs. the Agricultural Produce Market Co ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-12-1983
Reported in: (1983)2GLR1561
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. These two Special Civil Applications dealing with a common question of law can be taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. In order to understand the central question of law agitated by the learned Counsels appearing in these two matters, a few facts are required to be stated. The statute which is called for consideration here is the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the successor of the corresponding law of the erstwhile State of Bombay, being the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939. The Commissioner of Baroda Division lawfully entitled to exercise the powers conferred on him by Sub-section (3) of Section 4-A of the 1939 Act, was pleased to declare the area within the limits of the Godhra Municipality and the further area within the radius of 5 Miles of Godhra Taluka as the Market proper, by the notification dated 16th September, 1979 issued under the provision of Sub-section (1) of Sectio...
R.R. Chauhan and ors. Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-11-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR560
S.A. Shah, J.1. In this group of petitions the petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the authorities and the vires of the Gujarat Panchayat Services (Classification and Recruitment)(Second Amendment) Rules, 1977 on the ground that the said rules changed their conditions of service prejudicial to their right of promotion and therefore, these rules are contrary to the provisions contained in Section 206 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Panchayat Act') and are liable to be struck down. In this group of petitions common questions regarding vires of above rules and application of other circulars are are raised, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Before we consider the common contentions of these petitioners some facts are necessary to be mentioned. The Panchayat Act came into force in this State with effect from 1st April, 1963. The petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 294 of 1978 claim to have been allocated to the Panchayat Service...
Tham Bahadur Gaurang and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR429
S.L. Talati, J.1. The petitioners are the military personnel and they are undergoing imprisonment at Sabarmati Central Prison, Ahmedabad and they have now filed this petition challenging their trial and the conviction by the Court of Martial and their prayers are for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and further declaring that Sections 124 and 125 of the Army Act, 1950 are as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and further to declare Rule 61 of the Army Rules as unconstitutional and ultra tires Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.2. In the title to the petition begins however by mentioning Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and it is stated that the petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. The facts as they appear are that on 8/9-10-1979 in Leh (Ladakh) Kashmir an accident occurred as a result an inquiry was started against 12 per...
Vaghari Kala Bhikha and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-05-1983
Reported in: 1985CriLJ237; (1984)1GLR188
S.L. Talati, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment rendered in Sessions Case No. 32 of 1982 on 23-12-1982 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated as under :The appellants-original accused had gone for 'Girnar Parikrama' on 7-11-1981. Vitthal Govind, P.W. 1, (Ex. 10) head constable and three other police constables were on duty, The accused were near Ahmedabadi Kua near Jhinababa Medi on 9-11-1981 at about 3.30 p.m. Thousands of pilgrims were also there. Accused No. 6 was a wanted accused as he was to be arrested because of the fact that C.R. No. 223/79 was pending against him which was filed on 1-1-1979 for offences Under Sections 143, 147, 149, 332, 336, 337 and 504 of the I.P.C. That position is also clear because he was shown in absconding register kept at the Police Station. Both these facts are clear from the documents Ex. 24 and Ex. 34. Now, as Vitthal and other police constables saw these six pers...
Bai Dhangauri Wd/O Nagindas Bhagwandas and anr. Vs. Jayantilal Naginda ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-05-1983
Reported in: (1983)2GLR1491
D.H. Shakla, J.1. The respondent No. 1, Jayantilal Nagindas, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 216 of 1972 in the Court of the Civil Judge (J.D.), Surat for a declaration to set aside the release-deed alleged to have been executed by him and also for partitioning his share in certain proper-ties and for some other reliefs. The petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit respectively. The respondents Nos. 2,3 and 4 were the defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6 respectively in the suit. The suit was contested by the defendants. One of the contentions raised by the original defendants Nos. 1 to 3 was that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and in view of the said contention the trial Judge raised issue No. 14 as to whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.2. The trial Judge by his judgment and order dated 3-12-1977 was pleased to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the trial Court's judgment, the plaintiff prefe...
Jagmohandas Parshottamdas Shah and ors. Vs. Nadiad Nagar Palika and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-04-1983
Reported in: (1984)1GLR210
P.D. Desai, Acting C.J.1. The petitioners challenge herein the levy of octroi at enhanced rates by the respondent-Municipality under the impugned resolutions on diverse grounds.2. The respondent-Municipality passed a resolution on March 31 1979 under Section 101 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') declaring its intention to revise the rates of octroi duty in respect of items therein mentioned. Objections were duly invited and the petitioners or some of them filed the objections On April 30, 1979, the General Board of the respondent- Municipality appointed a Committee consisting of eight members to make recommendations after consideration of these objections. The Committee heard the objectors and made a report to the General Board incorporating its recommendations on September 23, 1981. On October 24, 1981 the General Board of the respondent-Municipality passed a resolution fixing the rates of octroi after taking into consideration the recommen...
State of Gujarat Vs. Shivshanker Gaurishanker Mehta and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-03-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Guj88; (1984)1GLR510
Bhat, J.1. All these references are made. to this Court by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad under Section 113 read with Order 46, Rules 2 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Code in the matters of the Civil Suits Nos. 2770/77, 2773/77, 3321/77, 3764/77, 4043/77, 4044/77, 493178, 942/78, 2084/77, 3158/77 and 197/7f. The suits have been Wed by various citizens, challenging the notice of the Municipal Commis3ion'tr issued under Sections 212 and 213 of' the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity's sake. One of the grounds challenging the said action was that Ss. 212 and 213 of the Act were ultra vire Art. 14 of the Constitution of India in so far as they unreasonably provided for a notice only to, the owner and not to the other interests like those of tenants, to be heard before the drastic action under Section 212 or 213 of' the Act was taken. The argument found favour with the learned Judge, who, by his common o...
The District Panchayal, Bhavnagar and anr. Vs. Mahmad Haji Gafur and C ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-03-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Guj98
ORDER1. The applicants were the opponents in Civil Misc, Application No. 200 of 1976 filed by the respondent in the Court of the Civil Judge (S. D.) :it Bhavnagar for the appointment of an Arbitrator in lieu of the Superintending Engineer, who was to act as an Arbitrator under Clause 30 of the contract between the parties in B-2 Form and who had allegedly neglected or refused to work as such.2. A short resume of facts - may be stated as under:-The applicant No, I-District Panchayat, Bhavnagar, acting through its Executive Engineer, District Panchayat Division, invited tenders for the work of flood damage repairs to Botad Turkha Road in B-2 form in the month of November 1970. The respondent, M/s. Mohmad Haji Gafur & Co-.. a registered Partnership firm), having its Office at Bhavnagar submitted the tender which was accepted by the Executive Engineer, District Panchayat Division. Bhavnagar on 4-12-1970. The applicants paid the security deposit as per the terms of the B-2 form which came t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »