Gujarat Court July 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.
Saiyed Abdul Raheman Saiyed Noormohmad (Decd.) Through His Heirs Saiye ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-12-1984
Reported in: (1985)1GLR239
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is an appeal by the heirs of the original plaintiff of the Special Civil Suit No. 67 of 1970 dismissed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) Surat. The original plaintiff had died on, 24-3-73 in the suit filed on 2-5-70. So, the suit was prosecuted by the present appellants, who are the heirs of the original plaintiff Saiyed Abdulraheman. The defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the suit, being legal representations of one Sadruddin, were impleaded as the main defendants Nos. 4 to 24 were impleaded because they were in possession of various parcels of the suit properties.2. In order to understand a good deal of controversy raised before us and also before the learned trial Judge on a number of points, the nature of the plaintiffs suit deserves to be noted at the outset. The plainf, No. 1 before the learned trial Judge showed that it was as if a simple suit for partition of some joint properties, joint between the plaintiff on one hand and the defendants Nos. 1 to 3...
Samadhiyala Gram Panchayat, Bhavnagar Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-11-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Guj105
1. This petition is filed by Samadhiyala Gram Panchayat against the order dt. 3rd Feb, 1978 passed by the Collector, Bhaynagar resuming a portion of survey No. 105/A admeasuring 4 acres 0 Guntha out of 258 acres, 23 gunthas of Gauchar (grazing) land granted to the petitioner Panchayat by the Collector, Bhavnagar by his office order dt. 10th April 1957. The reason for resumption of the aforesaid 4 acres of land was to allot the same to respondent No. 3 for his personal cultivation.2. Mr. R. N. Bhatt, the learned Counsel for the petitioner Panchayat has urged that the resumption of the said land can be only under S. 96(4) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961. Which empowers the State Government to resume land, which it had earlier granted. Mr. Bhatt has urged that the Government can resume land under S. 960) only for a public purpose and according to him, allotting land to respondent No. 3 for his personal cultivation cannot be regarded as a public purpose. Hence, according to him, the imp...
Chudasama Shambhaji Kalubha Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-10-1984
Reported in: (1985)2GLR824
S.A. Shah, J.1. The Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the respective petitions have submitted that in this group of petitions the main and common question that arises is with respect to interpretation of Section 6(3-B) of the Gujarat Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (Gujarat Act No. XXVII of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act') and, therefore, they may be disposed of by a common judgment without entering into facts of each petition, because if they succeed in their interpretation, it will be necessary to remand the matters to the authority below for deciding the ceiling area in each individual case. I have, therefore, heard all these petitions together and they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. For the purpose of appreciating the contentions of the parties regarding the interpretation of Section 6(3-B) of the Act, I would refer to the facts of Special Civil Application No. 1000 of 1978. The petitioner of the said petition was the owner of lands admeasu...
Prof. M.J. Pathakji Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-09-1984
Reported in: (1985)2GLR839
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner who is a retired professor has challenged the denial of postgraduate scale i.e. P. G. Scale of Rs. 700-40-1100 to the petitioner which according to him, is wrongly denied by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein which are authorities concerned with giving such grade to the petitioner. The concerned respondents have refused to grant the request of the petitioner on the basis that he was a retired Government servant who was re-employed by Nadiad Education Society and consequently, as per clause 5 of the Government Resolution dated 6-6-1970, annexure 'N' to the petition, the petitioner could not claim P. G. Scale to any extent which would make emoluments of the petitioner in any way higher than the last pay drawn and the pension as per the Govt. rules. The petitioner's contention is that clause 5 of the circular is violative of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution and is null an...
Chetan Textiles, Bombay Vs. Jethabhai Hirji and Co. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-06-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Guj95
1. These are two appeals from orders which arise out of similar orders. It is therefore proposed to dispose of both the appeals by this common judgment.2. Appeal from order No. 132 of 1980 arises at the instance of the original plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed Special Civil Suit No. 257 of 1976 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Surat in respect of a money claim. Defendants Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 resisted the said suit as per the written statement Exhibit 14 stating therein that defendant No. 3 had expired on 1st Sept. 1975, Amongst other defences, defendants had contended that Surat Court had no jurisdiction since the cause of action had arisen in Bombay and the defendants were residing and carrying on business at Bombay. Issues in the said suit had been framed at Exhibit 17 and issue No. 2 thereof was as under :'Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear the suit?'3. It appears that an application at Exhibit 58 had been preferred in the said suit by the aforesaid defend...
Laljibhai Laxmidas Manek Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-06-1984
Reported in: (1985)1GLR6
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which was permitted to be filed in a representative capacity under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 199 petitioners have voiced their grievance regarding maintenance of district wise seniority list of live stock inspectors also know as stockmen (veterinary) in the various district panchayat establishments in the panchayat service of the State functioning under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' and the rules made thereunder.2. In order to appreciate, the grievances of the petitioners, a peep into the petitioners' past service history will be apposite. All these petitioners had joined service of the then State of Bombay. They joined as live stock inspectors who were then working in the Agriculture Department of the then State of Bombay In the bigger bilingual State of Bombay, they were known as Stock men. Later on these posts came to be red...
Union of India and anr. Vs. Narayanbhai Keshavlal Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-05-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Guj31
1. This is a letters Patent Appeal against a decision in appeal from Order No. 90 of 1984. (reported in AIR 1984 Guj 206). That appeal was an appeal against an interim order passed in Civil Suit No. of 1984 before the City Civil Court , Ahmadabad. The appellants before us, who were appellants in Appeal From Order No. 90 of 1984 are the Union of India and the General Manager, Telephones, Ahmedabad. They are the defendants in the suit. The respondent here, who is the plaintiff in the suit, is a subscriber of two telephones at Ahmedabad, one bearing telephone No.'67869 at his residence and the other bearing No. 68233 at his shop.2. A notice under R. 421 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 was served on the respondent intimating that both the telephones would be disconnected on the expiry of seven days and pursuant to this notice dated February 6, 1984, the telephones were disconnected, though in the meanwhile the respondent had approached the City Civil Court with the suit and had taken o...
Porbandar Commercial Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Bhanji Lavji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Guj106; (1985)1GLR49
ORDER1. In these two petitions under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. though styled as petitions under Art. 226, it common order of the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal, exercising appellate jurisdiction under the provisions of Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act. 1961 has been brought under challenge. By the said common order two appeals have been disposed of by the Tribunal. Consequently two writ petitions have been filed.2. The petitioner in both these petitions is the Porbandar Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd., The said bank had advanced two different amounts under two separate loan transactions to respondent No. 3 who is the common respondent. He is Mr. P. V. Simaria, proprietor of Ashok Electrical Industries. He is the principal debtor, in both the proceedings. According to the petitioner Bank the said loans were advanced on the basis of the security furnished by respondents, Nos. I and 2 which are two firms functioning at Porbandar and whose partners, according to the p...
Jai Ranchhod Bhogilal Sevak and Etc. Vs. Thakorelal Pranjivandas Jumkh ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Guj1
Mehta, J.These matters raise a ,common question, namely, whether the 'power of appointment of trustee in accordance with the instr1imelit of trust is subject to the provisions of S, 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as' the Act') when such power is conferred on the District Court? The judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Yasinmian Amirmian Faroqui v. L A. Shaikh. 11977) l8, Guj LR 54 holds that in view of the provisions of S. 50 of the Act the provision in the scheme already settled would be overridden and would have to be adjusted and reshaped subject to the provisions of S. 50 of the Act. No suit oil proceeding for any of the reliefs mentioned therein (including the appointment of a new trustee) would be maintainable without the consent of the Charity Commissioner. When these matters came up for final hearing before our learned brother late A. N. Surti J. he could not agree with the reasoning of the Division Bench in Yasinmian case and therefo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›