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.
Maganlal Gangaram and ors. Vs. Vasantlal Kashiram Rupawala
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1984
Reported in: (1984)2GLR820
R.A. Mehta, J.1. This case is an example showing how the process of the Court sometimes earns bad name and reputation. In a suit for possession filed in 1962, a consent decree was passed in March, 64 and time was granted to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises till 31 March, 66. Bai Nani was defendant No. 3 who was alleged to be the sub-tenant and who was also party to the decree. This decree of 1964 remains unexecuted till today in 1984.2. As possession was not handed over by 31st March, 1966 as per the decree, a darkhast No. 72 of 1966 was filed for execution of the decree and recovery of possession. Civil Suit No. 370 of 1966 was filed by brother of original defendant No. 1. That suit was dismissed. Defendant No. 1 had also filed Reg. Civil Suit No. 361 of 1966 for setting aside the decree on the ground that the decree was a nullity. The suit, appeal and second appeal failed and till then the decree could not be executed.3. Now, the decree is sought to be resisted by the...
Kores (India) Ltd., Proprietors of Amarsinhji Mills and anr. Vs. Wanka ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1984
Reported in: (1984)2GLR1094
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Discussion and observation made in interlocutory proceedings by superior Court are against the petitioner. Can such a petitioner be allowed to maintain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court on the ground that the observations and discussion made by the superior Court are likely to prejudice his case in civil suit Can he be permitted to keep the suit pending in Civil Court and also to proceed with the writ petition in the High Court Even if the scope of the petition is expanded by introducing certain new facts and additional grounds, can the petitioner be allowed to adopt such a course On the basis of the material on record of the petition, is the petitioner-Company entitled to claim immunity from payment of octroi duty in accordance with the order passed by the State Government under Section 99 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1961 These are the important questions which arise in this petition.2. The relevant facts are as follow...
Shankerbhai Bhailalbhai Patel Vs. Baroda District Panchayat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1984
Reported in: (1984)2GLR921
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner, Sarpanch of Naria Gram Panchayat, wants an interim injunction during the pendency of the suit against the proceedings for his disqualification and consequent vacancy under Section 25 read with Section 23 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act. The trial Court granted and confirmed such injunction. However, the lower appellate Court has vacated the same, and in this revision application, the petitioner has submitted that the lower appellate Court has erred in vacating the interim injunction during the pendency of the suit.2. The petitioner-plaintiff has been proceeded against disqualification on the ground that he had failed to pay Panchayat dues inspite of special notice and for a period of three months thereafter and thereby he had incurred the disqualification. Section 23(1)(i) provides that:No person shall be a member of the Panchayat or continue as such who fails to pay any arrears of any kind due by him to the District Panchayat or any Panchayat subordinate...
Gujarat State Co-operative Marketing Federation and anr. Vs. R.H. Bhat ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1984
Reported in: (1984)2GLR1203
S.A. Shah, J.1. An important question of law arises in this petition inasmuch as whether respondent No. 1 who is a member of the Board of Nominees (Cooperative Societies), Ahmedabad has jurisdiction to pass an order of injunction against the petitioner (federal)-Society on the ground that he was an official Director of the petitioner-Society in past.2. The first petitioner is a federal co-operative society having its area of operation throughout the State of Gujarat and has about 827 cooperative societies as its members and had a subscribed share capital of Rs. 2,99,00,000/- at the relevant time. Petitioner No. 2 is an elected Chairman of the first petitioner-Society. Petitioner No. 2 is a leading public worker espscially having interest in co-operative movement. It appears that respondent No. 2 had filed an arbitration suit No. 876 of 1982 on 7-4-1982 against the Petitioner-Federation before the Board of Nominees created under the Cooperative Societies Act, at Ahmedabad and obtained a...
Vinaykumar Tribhovandas Patel Vs. Additional Development Commissioner ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-06-1984
Reported in: (1984)2GLR1046
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Can a mere irregularity in exercise of powers without anything more - amount to abuse of power and result into removal of the petitioner from office of Sarpanch In the context of the following facts, the aforesaid question has arisen.2. The petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Bhayli Gram Panchayat, Bhayli, Taluka and District Vadodara. He was elected in June 1979. By a notice dated October 15, 1980 issued under the provisions of Section 49 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act ('the Act', for short) the petitioner was called upon to explain certain acts of alleged abuses of power. The petitioner replied to the same by his letter dated November 25, 1980. The competent authority, i.e. District Development Officer (DDO), Vadodara, held that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Development Commissioner. The Addl. Development Commissioner heard the appeal and held that the petitioner was guilty in respect of ...
N.V. Ashar Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-06-1984
Reported in: (1984)2GLR1333
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner (original plaintiff) sought an interim injunction against his transfer from Junagadh to Bharuch. He is Junior Employment Officer, a Class III employee in the employment of State Government. The learned Trial Judge rejected the application. He carried the matter in appeal. There, the learned District Judge held that the appeal and the suit were not maintainable on the ground that the plaintiff had not fulfilled the conditions under sec 80 C.P.C. for filing a suit without statutory notice.2. It must be noted that alongwith the plaint, the petitioner-plaintiff had given an application Ex. 2 to the trial Court and obtained permission for instituting the suit without notice. That had become necessary because there was urgent and immediate need to obtain interim relief against the order of transfer. Thus, the suit was competently instituted under Section 80(2). However, the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that when the trial Court refused interim...
Sarjubhaiya Mathurbhaiya Kahar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police and a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1474; (1984)1GLR538(GJ)
P.S. Poti, C.J.1. Though we have heard this application along with some others wherein also the same question arises, all the cases having been referred to a Full Bench because of the importance of the question raised, we are disposing of by this judgment only this application though we have heard counsel in all the other cases on the constitutional question arising in this case. This is because the other cases require consideration on the merits too and reply affidavits have not been filed in those cases yet. We hence delink those cases from this case and remit them to be disposed of by the Division Bench normally hearing such applications by a separate order. On the question of the constitutional validity of the sections impugned in this case the decision rendered by us in this petition would give sufficient guidance to the Division Bench.2. In this country there have been various preventive detention laws enacted by the Parliament from time to time. Persons who are security risks to...
ishverbhai Bhagubhai Vs. Special Secretary, Revenue Department and anr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-02-1984
Reported in: (1984)2GLR1219
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. Petitioner's father Bhagubhai became deemed purchaser of Survey No. 18 of village Karanj, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat, by virtue of Section 32 read with Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act'). On his death, his heirs (1) Ishverbhai, (2) Haribhai, (3) Champaklal, (4) Shantaben and (5) Gangaben became the joint owners of the said property. By a deed of relinquishment dated 1-12-1964, the other co-owners relinquished their respective shares in favour of the petitioners. On an application made by the petitioner, a mutation entry was made to that effect in the revenue records. However, the Mamlatdar by his order dated 30-5-1967 cancelled that entry on the ground that the transfer was void according to Section 43 of the Tenancy Act. That order was confirmed in appeal, by the Assistant Collector. The petitioner then filed a further appeal before the Collector, who held that second appeal did not l...
Natia Jiria Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-01-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ936; (1984)1GLR464(GJ)
P.S. Poti, C.J.1. We are concerned here with a very interesting question. A Division Bench of this Court felt that what this Court had spoken on the question earlier may' call for reconsideration and appropriately therefore referred the matter to a Full Bench. That is how the matter is now before us.2. Poverty is no crime. Even so property oriented approach in statutory provisions often results in a poor man being prized out of justice. The acuteness of extreme poverty could be best understood only by experiencing it. The plight of the impecunious in all its severity may not be fully realised even by an enlightened class engaged in statute and rule making. Whatever may be said of the legislations prior to the Constitution, in an egalitarian society where justice is promised to the poor and the rich alike, there is no scope for a law which virtually keeps out a penurious person from the benefit of the law or puts him to the penalty of a provision for reason of his impecuniousness. If an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›