Gujarat Court March 1984 Judgments
Fatehsinhrao Pratapsinhrao Gaekwad Vs. Savjibhai Haribhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-30-1984
Reported in: (1985)1GLR14
R.A. Mehta, J.1. A short and simple question has taken considerable time at the lengthy hearing of this Revision Application. The question is whether the trial court was justified in granting the plaintiffs application, for joining additional defendants under Order 1, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. They are the specified authority, competent authority and State Government under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976.2. The respondent No. 1 original plaintiff, has filed Special Civil Suit No. 70/80 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baroda, for a declaration that the agreement and irrevocable power of attorney dt. 24th March 1977 and the affidavit-cum-declaration dt. 10th February, 1978 are valid, sabsisting and binding on the defendant (the petitioner herein) and for due performance of the agreement and other directions for the said purpose and for a permanent injunction against breach of the said contract and irrevocable power of attorney and from interfering and n...
Tag this Judgment!indulal G. Trivedi Vs. General Manager, Western Railway and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-30-1984
Reported in: (1984)2GLR1328
S.A. Shah, J.1. The short question that arises for my consideration in this petition is whether the order of transfer of petitioner from Surendranagar to Rajkot on account of upgradation of the post and allowing his juniors to continue at Surendranagar is arbitrary and contrary to the practice that has been followed by the Railway Administration. The issue falls within the very narrow compass, whether the Railway Administration can transfer the petitioner from Surendranagar to Rajkot without consideration of the administrative exigencies, by retaining his juniors at Surendranagar.2. The short facts necessary for deciding the issues are as under: The petitioner was originally recruited as Cleaner by an order dated 10th November. 1952 in the Western Railway and has eventually reached the cadre of Driver-Gr. B which is a non-gazetted post. It appears from the averments in para 7 of the petition that the post of Driver-Gr. B was upgraded as Driver Gr. A(0) because the post of Driver Gr. B ...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Patel Vs. Secretary, Indian Council of Agricultural Research and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-30-1984
Reported in: (1984)2GLR1339
R.A. Mehta, J.1. This Revision Application by the original plaintiff arises from an application for interim injunction restraining the opponents-defendants from acting upon or executing their order dt. 5-11-1980 and memorandum dt. 29-11-80 extending his period of probation and holding departmental inquiry. The learned trial Judge granted ex parts interim order as prayed. However, after biparte hearing, the interim injunction was confirmed as regards the order dt. 5-11-1980 regarding extension of the period of probation and it was vacated with regard to the memorandum dt. 29-11-80 regarding holding of the departmental inquiry and it was clarified that the defendants were at liberty to prosecute the departmental inquiry against the plaintiff in pursuance of the memorandum dt. 29-11-80.2. Being aggrieved thereby the defendants preferred an appeal to the District Court and the learned District Judge has allowed the appeal and vacated the interim order. The petitioner-original plaintiff has...
Tag this Judgment!Rabari Varva Jesang Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-27-1984
Reported in: (1985)1GLR152
V.V. Bedarkar, J.1. This is an application making a grievance about the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts of the case are that complainant Suraji Pragji was serving as a conductor in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, on 25-1-1983 in the bus going to Deesa. He took some passengers at the bus-stand named Kuda Vasan. Among them was present petitioner-accused Rabari Varva Jesang. He took the ticket from Kuda Vasan to Agathala. The bus fare was Re. 1/- The petitioner-accused gave a currency note of Rs. 10/-. The Complainant deducted Re. 1/- and gave the remaining amount in the form of one currency note of Rs. 5/- and two currency notes of Rs. 21- each. Among those currency notes of Rs. 21- each, one was spoiled and, therefore, the accused requested the complainant to change it. The complainant told the accused that he would give him at the time when he gets down at Agathala. When the bus came to Agathala Bus Stan...
Tag this Judgment!Kothari and Associates Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Guj42; (1986)1GLR593
ORDER1. This Revision Application arise from dismissal of an application for referring the dispute to arbitration The dispute is refused to be referred on the ground that it is barred by the provisions of 0. 2 R. 2, C. P. C. Therefore the question is whether the provisions or principles of 0. 2 R. 2, C. P. C. apply to an application under the Arbitration Act.2. The petitioner is a construction contractor for certain work at Ukai dam. The work, order was given on 17th Jan. 1973 and the work was to be completed within 18 months i.e. before 16th July 1974. However the work was completed on 30th Sept. 1975 and this excess period of 141/2 months was alleged to be due to delay on the part of the opponent government. The petitioner claimed that the government had extended the time to the detriment of the petitioner. It appears that the final bill was paid on 22nd May 1979 and the security deposit was returned on 23rd Aug. 1979. On 7th Oct. 1980 the petitioner addressed a letter making further...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Yuvraj Shri Digvijaysinh ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-1984
Reported in: 1(1984)ACC32
D.H. Shukla, J.1. These four appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajkot District, Rajkot, in Claims Cases Nos. 37/76, 38/76, 39/76 and 40/76 wherein the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 93,200/- to the claimant in claim Case No. 37/76, a sum of Rs. 9,990/- to the claimant in claim Case No. 38/76; Rs. 7436/- to the claimant in claim case No. 39/76 and Rs. 9,990/- to the claimant in Claim case No. 40/76.2. Having been aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and award of the Tribunal, the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has filed these appeals.3. Out of the aforesaid for claim cases, claim case No. 38/76, Claim Case No. 39/76 and Claim Case No. 40/76 involved, relatively speaking, smaller amounts of compensation then in claim case No. 37/76 wherein the compensation awarded is Rs. 93,200/-. It may be stated at the outset that Mr. D.K. Trivedi, the learned Advocate for the appellant (original opponent No. 2) did n...
Tag this Judgment!Minish K. Sheth and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Guj56; (1985)1GLR202
ORDER1. The petition arises out of an order passed by the state Government tinder the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation )Act. 1976 ( hereinafter referred to as' the Act'). The petitioners were carrying on business in partnership which came into existence on Feb.8. 1963.There were charges in the constitution of the firm from time to time. Ultimately on Dec. 25.1974 a partnership deed was executed which is produced at Annexure 'E' to the petition. As per the partnership deed on record. the capital of the partnership firm was to the tune of Rs.2,80,000. One minor Master Shailesh S. Sheth was also admitted to the benefit of partnership. This partnership has been dissolved as per the deed of dissolution dated April 25. 1981. The deed of dissolution is produced at Annexure A/1 to the petition. The deed of partnership as well as the deed of dissolution have not been registered under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It may not be obligatory to get the partnersh...
Tag this Judgment!Natavarbhai S. Makwana Vs. Union Bank of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-1984
Reported in: (1985)IILLJ296Guj
1. In a departmental inquiry held against a bank employee, he was chargesheeted for certain misconduct. Sufficient details regarding the misconduct alleged were not given in the chargesheet. He confessed and admitted something which did not form part of the charge. Without there being any evidence or proof of the misconduct alleged, he has been convicted and punished solely on the basis of his confession. Can this order imposing punishment be sustained This, in short, is the question which awaits answer. 2. The petitioner is an employee of the respondent which is a nationalised bank. He is serving as a Clerk-cum-Cashier at Amreli Branch of the Bank. He was selected as a candidate for induction course for a period commencing from 18th June, 1982 to 6th July, 1982. When the induction course was going on, the petitioner was found to be irregular in his attendance and, therefore, he was relieved from the training course before the expiry of the training period. He was served with a memo da...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal Premjibhai Thakkar Vs. Shah Atulkumar Kantilal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-21-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Guj152; (1984)2GLR1376
ORDER1. The short question is whether the insolvency Court has any discretion to issue a notice to the opponents debtors after admitting the insolvency perition and before directing public notice to issue. One more significant fact is that the debors had already filed a caveat and served copy thereof to one of the petitioninja creditors prior to filing of the insolvency petition. Yet without heariag the opponents-debtors, the trial Court has passed the following order:'General and public notice and special notice to issue according to law. Public notice to issue in Gujarat Government Gazette also. Applicant to deposit Rs. 700 for the expenses. Notice be issued in daily Jana Satta'.' 2. The debtors filed an application Ex. 26 praying that the order of public notice below, Ex. I be stayed and the other orders also be stayed since they were passed without any notice to them (the debtors). It was pointed out in the application that the caveat, application No. 25/82 was filed in the Court o...
Tag this Judgment!President, Kankaria Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Ahmed ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Guj118; (1984)2GLR1188
P.S. Poti, C.J.1. This reference is at the instance of Kankaria Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Ahmedabad, and the question concerns the liability to stamp duty in respect of eleven sale deeds executed in favour of the said society by a builder who conveyed under twelve separate documents of sale, a building with twelve flats built up an Sub-Plot No. 78 of T. P. Scheme -No. 4 of Manager Final Plot No. 73 admeasuring 840 Sq. yards. The price shown in each, one of those documents, which we have said earlier is for 1/12th undivided share, of the land and the superstructure thereon, was Rs. 40,500/-.2. The question concerns the exemption claimed by the Co-operative Society from the liability to pay stamp duty on these sales as the purchasers on the basis of a notification dated 28th March, 1968 an eleven out of the twelve documents which were all executed by if same seller to the same purchaser on the same day, viz,, on 16th March, 1973. But, even before such documents were fi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »