Gujarat Court February 1984 Judgments
Takhubha Pratapsing Vs. Mahipatsinh Bhavsinh Bhavsinh and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-1984
Reported in: (1984)1GLR493
P.S. Poti, C.J.1. Rule. Shri P.V. Hathi waives service of Rule for respondent No. 1 and Shri R.M. Vin waives service of rule for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.2. This is the epilogue of a tragic story. We are distressed at our helplessness. The constraints on the reach of the Court leave us in the end with the realisation of our limitations. We have been approached for justice. The power of the Court to secure to every person his life and liberty knows no bounds. When these are in peril to assure relief to the aggrieved no cost is too heavy and no effort too excessive. But in this case, despite our best efforts we regret to say, we have been unable to provide relief, the passage of a fairly long time, and our special attention to the case notwithstanding. We have quite often to depend on the executive agency for active investigation when there is a motion for habeas corpus and if that machinery does not view the matter with the gravity it deserves, despite being alerted in no uncertain terms...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Patel Naraangbhai Ramjibh ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-1984
Reported in: 1(1984)ACC386
R.C. Mankad, J.1. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, appellant herein has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Banaskantha District at Palanpur.2. This appeal arises out of the claim petition filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimants') claiming compensation for the death of one Manjibhai Narsangbhai (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') son of respondents Nos. 1 & 2 and husband of respondent No. 3 who died as a result of fatal injuries received by him in a vehicular accident which took place at about 4.00 P.M. on August 20, 1979 on State High Way between Palanpur and Balaram in Banaskantha District. At the time when the accident occurred, the deceased was riding a scooter and he was going from Palanpur to Balaram. A bus of the appellant driven by respondent No. 4 who was employee of the appellant came from the opposite direction that is from Balaram side and collision bet...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-i Vs. Lilavati Thakorelal Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-21-1984
Reported in: (1985)45CTR(Guj)77; [1985]152ITR565(Guj)
Mehta, J.1. A vexed question is again arising in this reference as to whether he lands in question which were purchased in two parts in November, 1937, and February, 1947, by the assessee, her sister-in-law and her two brothers-in-law were agricultural lands or not In order to appreciate the question which has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), we may set out a few facts from the statement of the case referred to us by the Tribunal. The assessee together with her sister-in-law, Smt. Shardaben Dhirajlal, and two brothers of her husband, Shri Ratilal Khushaldas and Shri Kantilal Khushaldas, jointly owned certain lands in village Shekhpur Khanpur, which is now known as Navrangpura. The lands are totally admeasuring 8,191 sq. yds. which is roughly equivalent to 1.28 gunthas. With effect from May, 1945, the said lands came within Town Planning Scheme No. 3 of Ellisbridge area in Ahmedabad City, with the result that ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagubhai H. Devani Vs. Porbandar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-21-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Guj134
ORDER1 to 15. XX XX16. In the instant case, two questions are involved:(1) Disposal of public, property by the 'State' or 'other authorities' as defined under Art, 12 of the Constitution.(2) Disposal of the property by an authority which is required to hold the property as trustee as per the provisions of the Act by which the authority is constituted and which is supposed to run its affair in accordance with the provisions of the Act.17. It is an undisputed position that the petitioner is an elected Councillor of the Municipality. He represents a section of the people who have reposed confidence in him believing that he will safeguard their interests as far as the affairs of the Municipality is concerned. It is also his duty to see that the Municipality .acts in the best interest of the people. It is also-his duty to see that the Municipality acts, In accordance with law. Apart from the fact that whether he has been actuated by the high motives of public interest, litigation or not, th...
Tag this Judgment!Punambhai Khodabhai Parmar Vs. G. Kenel Construction and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-20-1984
Reported in: (1985)ILLJ98Guj
R.C. Mankad, J.1. The only question raised in this appeal by the workman is that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has erred in allowing compensation of Rs. 18,816/- only instead of Rs. 26,880/- to him. 2. The appellant who was employed as a driver of a truck by respondent No. 1 met with an accident on February 21, 1980 and as a result of the injuries sustained by him, there was permanent disability of his right hand fingers, right elbow and right thigh. It appears from the evidence of the appellant that he is not in a position to work as driver on account of the permanent disability suffered by him. It is in the background of these facts that the question arises whether he is entitled to compensation of Rs. 26,880/-. It is not disputed by the respondents that under Schedule IV of the Workmen's Compensation Act, since the appellant's salary was Rs. 350/- per month he would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 26,880/- if he suffered from permanent total disability as a result o...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Kiritkumar D. Gor Vs. Trustees of Saraspur Dharmada Trust
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-20-1984
Reported in: (1984)2GLR831
S.L. Talati, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition and by this petition he is challenging the order passed by the learned Small Cause Court Judge, dated 4-2-1983 which came to be passed while deciding the application exh. 14 which was submitted by the petitioner for amending his petition under the provisions contained in Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. The facts as they appear are that the petitioner applied for fixation of standard rent and according to him the standard rent was the contractual rent fixed between the parties which was Rs. 150/- and over and above that he was required to pay municipal taxes, education cess, electric charges etc. He averred in the petition that the opponents were demanding Rs. 200/- plus tax and, therefore, he had filed the petition. Now he wanted by the amendment to change his prayer clause by which he wanted to delete the former prayer which was for the fixation of standard rent at Rs. 150/- and now he wanted that his prayer should...
Tag this Judgment!Ratilal Devabhai Navik Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ96; (1983)2GLR657; (1985)1GLR23
B.K. Mehta, J.1. Whether successive applications for a writ of Habeas Corpus on the same and/or fresh grounds can be filed before the High Court is a moot question which arises in this criminal application. In order to appreciate the contentions which have been urged on behalf of the petitioner-detenu, it is necessary to briefly set out a few facts which are as under :The petitioner has been detained by the order of the State Government dated Mar. 18, 1983 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA'). The petitioner was supplied with the grounds on which the detention order has been made, on the same day in Gujarati as well as in English. It appears that the wife of the petitioner Smt. Manjulaben Ratilal had moved this Court for appropriate writ, order and/or direction, and particularly a writ of or a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus by her Spl....
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Saroj Ramesh Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-1984
Reported in: (1984)1GLR689
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is a petition by an Associate Professor of Pathology and Microbiology in the State's services. She challenges in this petition the order Annexure-HH page-32A dated 28-4-1983 and the Order Annexure-I page-32 dated 9-11-1983. The challenge to Annexure-HH is uncalled for because that order was not implemented or not acted upon. By that order Annexure-HH. the respondent No. 4 Dr. Karelia was given promotion as the Professor of Pathology (from the post of an Associate Professor which the petitioner also was holding) at Surat. The respondent No. 4 did not join that post at Surat and so, by the order Annexure-1 dated 9-11-1983 he came to be appointed as the professor of Pathology at the B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad and by that order Annexure-1 the respondent No. 5 came to be appointed as the Professor of Pathology from the post of an Associate Professor, at Surat. These promotions of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are challenged by the petitioner in this petition on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmed Ahaiyat Saiyed (Driver) and anr. Vs. Ibrahim Bhachal Shah and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-1984
Reported in: II(1984)ACC323
M.B. Shah, J.1. Respondent No. 1 had filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 159 of 1980 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Valsad at Navsari, contending that he had hired the motor truck bearing Registration No. GTY 4304 owned by appellant No. 2 of which appellant No. 1 was driver for carrying his goods i.e. goats and sheep from Anjar to Bombay. It was his say that he was dealing in goats and sheep and that he was sitting in the cabin of the aforesaid truck when the goats and sheep were carried in it on 31st March 1980.2. At about 2-30 p.m. when the truck reached near village Astagam of Navsari Taluka, it, overturned and toppled on the side-as a result of which his 65 goats and 3 sheep died on the spot and he was also injured.3. After recording necessary evidence, the Tribunal by his judgment and order dated 30th January 1982 awarded Rs. 3000/- on the count of physical, mental sufferings, agony, shock and inconvenience etc., Rs. 150/- for medical and other expenses,. Rs. 250/-...
Tag this Judgment!Bachu Laxman Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-09-1984
Reported in: (1984)2GLR1336
I.C. Bhatt, J.1. The petitioner has filed the abovementioned Special Civil Application challenging the action of the Railway administration retiring the petitioner on completing the age of 58 years, on 31-3-1981. Case of the petitioner is that he being the employee of the erstwhile Bhavnagar State Railway, was entitled to serve upto 60 years which benefit remains vested in him and therefore he cannot be superannuated at the age of 58 years, as per the correct interpretation of Rule 2046 (F.R. 56) read with the rules of Ex-Bhavnagar State known as 'Age Limit Rules of 1919'.2. At the time of admission of the abovementioned Special Civil Application, this Court on 23-3-1981 issued Rule and ad-interim relief against the retirement of the petitioner till 31-3-1983 was granted. This ad-interim relief was confirmed on 6-4-1981 by this Court. Thereafter this matter was pending. However, on 23-3-1983 the Railway Administration filed a Civil Application No. 1359 of 1983 for getting the interim r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »