Gujarat Court March 1984 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.
Jesangbhai Desaibhai Patel and ors. Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Auth ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-19-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Guj144; (1984)1GLR485
P.S. Poti, C.J.1. The Jambusar Taluka Co-operative Purchase and Sale Union took a sale of a property from. Shri Pranjivandas Sakarlal Thakkar and Shri Harshvadan Sakarlal Thakkar, both being partners of a firm, for a consideration of Rs, 62,000 by a document executed on 27th Oct. 1972. No stamp duty was levied on the document but the Sub-Registrar, jambusar, impounded the document under S. 33 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (Bombay Act No, LK of 1958) and forwarded to the Collector, Broach, for recovery of deficit stamp duty. The Collector determined this deficit stamp duty as Rs. 6,150 and together with the penalty of Rs. 5/- sought recovery from .the Society.2. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Gujarat State, before whom an appeal was filed, passed an order rejecting the appeal and thereupon on a motion for reference, the question of payment of proper stamp duty has been referred to this Court.3. The simple question that calls for an answer is whether an exemption Notification d...
Shree Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahkari Mandali Ltd. and anr. Vs. S ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-19-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Guj202
ORDER1. This matter was called out for final hearing on March 16, 1984. The counsel for the respondents had filed sick note and was not available. Hence, the matter was adjourned. On the same day, a fresh board was notified and it had been made known to all concerned that the matter shall be taken up in serial order and in no case, adjournment shall be granted. Today, when this matter is called out, the counsel for the petitioner is absent. The counsel for the respondent has been requested to proceed further with the matter. After some time, Mr. Cbapaneri, learned junior of Mr. P. M. Raval, advocate for the petitioners, has come in the Court room. He stated that Mr. Raval is busy in another Court. When he was requested to proceed with the matter, he expressed his inability. As notified earlier, the matter is proceeded further, It may be noted that during the course of this sitting, which has commenced on February 28, 1984, except for few days, everyday, I have sat idle at least for abo...
Govindbhai Jivabhai Patel and ors. Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Autho ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-19-1984
Reported in: (1984)1GLR478
P.S. Poti, C.J.1. This is a reference made under Section 54(1) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (Bombay Act No. LX of 1958) by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, who dismissed an appeal against the order passed by the Collector and Assistant Superintendent of Stamps, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, imposing a duty of Rs. 5,100/- together with a penalty of Rs. 20/ - on a memorandum of partition which came to the notice of the Collector and Assistant Superintendent of Stamps.2. One Govindbhai Jivabhai Patel, a 'Karta' of a joint family consisting of himself, his wife and three sons, orally partitioned the joint family properties and the five members of the family took separate items of properties. Thereafter five memoranda of partition were prepared, each one of the memoranda of partition scheduling the properties which fell to the individual share of one of the five members of the family. This was on 15th January 1973. It appears that either one or all of them wer...
Laxmandas Chelaram Vs. Hemdas Hauromal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Guj154
1. These two revision applications were heard together since the matters arise out of the same suit and ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*Against judgment and order of N. L.Solanki, Extra Asstt. Judge. Narol. D/-14-8-1980.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------are allied in nature. The revision Petitioner in both these petitions is a tenant of a building. During the pendency of the suit for recovery of arrears of rent with possession, the Court proceeded to direct deposit by the tenant in Court such amount as it considered proper as interim standard rent payable during the pendency of the suit, in exercise of its power under See. 11(4) of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Act No. LVII of 1947). Since the question in controversy turns...
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Capt. Jogendranath Chopra
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-1984
Reported in: (1984)2GLR1091
P.S. Poti, C.J.1. As a rule, Courts must be liberal in allowing amendment of pleadings, being not too technical in their approach in the grant of amendments. It may be that a party to a suit may, for good reason or otherwise, fail to plead his case in the manner he ought to have pleaded; but, in the normal course, that should not lead the party to the loss of his case as it would be penalising him for his ignorance and that would involve an element of travesty of justice. In fairness, therefore, a Court should show concern in allowing amendment of the plaint or the written statement if the amendment as sought is for the purpose of determining the real controversy between the parties. But, where the Court feels that an amendment is sought at a late stage of a suit, not with the purpose of highlighting the issues between the parties, but in an attempt to protract the trial of the suit, the Court should certainly discourage such attempt for no Court should permit its process to be abused....
Sizing Materials Chemicals and Electronic Ltd. Vs. Asitkumar Rameshcha ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-15-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Guj179
ORDER1. The petitioner, original defendant 2, challenges the order and decree passed by the Ahmedabad Small Cause Court No. 9 in Summary Suit No. 1280 of 1979 decided on 14-1-1983 as confirmed by the Bench of the Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad in Application No. 24 of 1983 decided on 20th Feb. 1984.2. It appears that original plaintiff respondent herein had filed a summary suit to recover a sum of Rs. 1900/- and odd against defendant I as the air-conditioner was repaired. All correspondence etc. continued between the plaintiff and defendant 1. Ultimately when leave to defend application was filed, the plaintiff chose to add defendant 2 as a party in the year 1981 as it was revealed that the air conditioner belonged to defendant 2. The Small Cause Court, it appears, passed a decree the defendants, while the Bench of the Small Cause Court partly allowed the application and set aside the decree passed against defendant I it passed a decree against defendant 2 only for a sum of Rs 1875/-. Fi...
Chauhan Husainbhai Alibhai Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-14-1984
Reported in: (1984)2GLR1515
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The petitioner, an elected Sarpanch of Govindpara Gram Panchayat, taluka-Verava), district-Junagadh, has filed this petition challenging the legality and validity of a notification dated November 30, 1982, by which the respondent No. 2 herein declared the programme of election of Govindpara Gram Panchayat under the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act and the Rules formed thereunder. The legality and validity of the notification is challanged inter alia on the ground that the election was to be held on the basis of census of 1971 and not on the basis of the census figures of 1981. It was also alleged that the list of voters and the division of wards were not proper and in accordance with law.2. As per the programme of election declared by the respondent No. 2 herein, the electors were required to file their nomination papers between December 15, 1982 to December 17, 1982. The scrutiny of the nomination papers was fixed on December 18, 1982. The election, ...
Gopalbhai Parshot Tamdas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-13-1984
Reported in: (1984)2GLR1470
V.V. Bedarkar, J.1. In this petition the petitioner is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 days and fine of Rs. 50, 7 days and fine of Rs. 50, 15 days and fine of Rs. 100 and 30 days and fine of Rs. 250/- respectively for each of the aforesaid offences and for every default of fine, 10 days further R. I. Though he was also convicted for the offences under Sections 112 and 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no separate sentence was awarded for the said offences. This order of conviction and sentence was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 3rd Court, Narol, in Criminal Case No. 2881 of 1982. Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 1983 filed by the petitioner-accused in the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad District (Rural) at Narol, was also dismissed. Hence this revision.2. Having gone through the papers and judgments of the Courts below, it was found that the conviction of th...
Jagatbhai Punjabhai Palkhiwala and ors. Vs. Vikarambhai Punjabhai Palk ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Guj112; (1984)2GLR1242
ORDER1. The petitioners have challenged the order of the trial court refusing permission to take xerox copies of the documents in the custody of the Court. 2. The petitioners (original plaintiffs) have filed a suit for a declaration that ail the ventures undertaken by the plaintiff and contesting defendants were joint ventures carried on behalf of the joint -members in which all the family members have interest, and such business ventures; properties and assets were more particularly described in the schedule to the plaint and it was contended that the plaintiffs side had 1/3 share therein and a prayer was made for accounts, partition etc. In the suit, by a notice of motion, several interim prayers were made, such as injunction regarding alienation of property, appointment of receiver, appointment of Commissioner to make inventory and to take possession of books of accounts and papers etc. One of the prayers was to take possession of the arbitration agreement and proceedings and docume...
Jagatbhai Punjabhai Palkhiwala and ors. Vs. Vikrambhai Punjabhai Palkh ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Guj34; (1984)2GLR482
ORDER1. In Civil Suit Na 1825/81 by 1hopelitkinemkplaintiffs, an application (notice of motion) was given for certain interim orders. The dispute is against family members and relates to number of businesses and large properties. It -appears that there was some Appointment made of arbitrators and certain records was with the arbitrators who are defendant-opponents Nos 9. 10 and 11.2. In the suit a declaration is sought that the various businesses mentioned in schedule 'N and all the assets and properties of the businesses mentioned in schedule A and described in particular in schedule E were the properties of the entire family in which three branches of the family including that of the plaintiffs had V3 share each and the defendants were liable to render true and full accounts thereof and for partition of the share etc. In the -notice of motion, prayers were made for an interim order and injunction restraining the defendants Nos 1 to 8 from carrying on businesses mentioned in schedule ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »