Gujarat Court November 1985 Judgments
Gautam Transport Vs. Jiluben Huseinbhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-29-1985
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas33(Guj)
D.C. Gheewala, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the order No. 60 of 1983 of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The present two appellants along with respondent No. 2 the insurance company, were held responsible by the learned Commissioner as the deceased had died during the course of employment of the present appellants. The learned Commissioner, while awarding compensation of Rs. 30,000, also imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000 and he ordered that the said penalty shall be payable by the present appellants and the insurance company was exonerated from paying the said amount. The appellants have challenged the said order and we heard Mr. Damani, learned advocate for the appellants,at great length. The Bench which was previously seized of this matter, by an order dated October 15, 1985, issued notice to respondent No. 9 while observing that they did not see any reason as to why this court should interfere with the order of penalty. However, when notice was issued in pu...
Tag this Judgment!Gautam Transport Vs. HuseIn Ahmeda Through L. Rs. Jiluben Huseinbhai a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-29-1985
Reported in: II(1989)ACC110
D.C. Gheewala, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation No. 60 of 1983. The present two appellants along with respondent No. 2--Insurance Company were held responsible by the learned Commissioner as the deceased had died during the course of employment of the present appellants. The learned Commissioner, while awarding Compensation of Rs. 30,000/- also imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- and he ordered that the said penalty shall be payable by the present appellants and the Insurance Company was exonerated for the said amount. The appellants have challenged the said order and we heard Mr. Damani, learned Advocate for the appellants at great length. The Bench which was previously seized of this matter, by an order dated October 15, 1985, issued notice to respondent No. 9 while observing that they did not see any reason as to why this Court should interfere with the order of penalty. However, when notice was issued in pursuance of...
Tag this Judgment!Hasmukhlal Raichand Vs. Chandrakant Mahendralal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-29-1985
Reported in: (1986)2GLR1133
M.B. Shah, J.1. The plaintiffs, who are the heirs and legal representatives of one Mahendralal Balubhai had filed Special Civil Suit No. 34 of 1973 before the Civil Judge (S.D.) Navsari for redemption and possession of the mortgaged property after taking accounts. It was their contention that by a registered mortgage-deed dated 27-4-61 Survey Nos. 683, 684 and 685 in all admeasuring 4 acres 21 gunthas of Navsari were mortgaged by deceased Mahendralal Balubhai for security of Rs. 15,000/- taken from the defendant No. 1. In paragraph 3 of the plaint it is their say that at that time defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were in possession of the suit property as tenants, for paying the mortgage debt an arrangement was arrived at between the parties that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 would pay rent directly to the defendant No. 1; that they came to know that the defendant No. 1 had transferred the suit lands to defendants Nos. 2 to 5; as the defendants refused to redeem the mortgaged property after settling ...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal Sundarji Bhanushali Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-29-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR704
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. By our earlier order dated 8th November 1985, we had allowed the petition and had quashed the impugned order preventively detaining the petitioner under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. We had deferred recording of reasons for the said order. The reasons for our aforesaid decision are as under:2. The petitioner was preventively detained by an order dated 22-2-1985 issued by the officer on special duty and Ex-officio Joint Secretary to Government, Home Department (Special), by order and in the name of the Governor of Gujarat, under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act for short). The said order was pasted with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods. The petitioner was also supplied with grounds of detention on the very same day i.e. 22-2-1985. It is not necessary to refer to the...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Ramanlal Ishwardas Vs. Patel Amthabhai Narottamdas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-28-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR451
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this revision application under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner has challenged the order passed below ex. 83 in regular Civil Suit No. -120 of 1974 by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Vijapur. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, a few relevant facts are required to be noted at the outset.2. The petitioner is the owner of agricultural land bearings. No. 28 situated on the outskirts of village Kalavada in Vijapur taluka at Mehsana district. It was mortgaged with possession with the present opponent, on 4-10-1949 by registered dated. After the period of mortgage was over, the petitioner served a notice of redemption and as it was not complied with, he was compelled to file the above suit in the trial court for redemption of the mortgaged field and possession thereof.3. In the written statement ex. 17, the present opponent-defendant contended that he had been the tenant of the suit field even prior to the date of mortgage i.e. p...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Vidya Vikas Kelavani Trust and ors. Vs. Ghanshyambhai Marghabhai ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-27-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR406; (1986)IILLJ236Guj
1. The petitioners are original defendants Nos. 1 to 4. Petitioner No. 1 is a Trust, and other petitioners are its Trustees. Respondent No. 1 is the original plaintiff. He is a primary teacher. Since he is also a trustee petitioner No. 1-Trust, he has been added as original defendant No. 5 (Respondent No. 2 in this petition), to avoid legal technicalities. 2. There is no dispute that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is primary teacher of the school run by petitioners No. 1-Trust. The petitioner-Trust appears to have given show-cause notice dated 1st December, 1982 for holding departmental inquiry against the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for the delinquencies alleged against him in the said notice, with which we are not concerned at this stage. 3. Having received the show-cause notice, respondent No. 1 rushed to the Court and filed a suit, being Civil Suit No. 16 of 1983, in the Court of the learned Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baroda, and obtained interim order of status quo agai...
Tag this Judgment!Patan Proper Fal and Shak Bhaji Kharid Vechan Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-27-1985
Reported in: AIR1987Guj33
B.K. Mehta, J. 1. Since this group of seven Letters Patent Appeals relates to the elections of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Patan, and a common question of law going to the root of the matter arises in these Letters Patent Appeals, we intend to dispose them of by this common judgment.2. In order to appreciate the two broad contentions, which have been raised in each of the respective appeals, we may get out shortly a few facts relevant and material for our purposes so as to enable us to appreciate these contentions in proper perspective.L. P. A. No. 382/85 :3. Respondent No. 1. which is a Cooperative Marketing Society, moved this Court by Special Civil Application No. 5620/85 for appropriate writs, orders and directions enjoining the Authorised Officer respondent No. 2 herein, appointed for the purposes of elections of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Patan respondent No. 3 herein, to include the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the Petitioner-Socie...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. P.D. Anklesaria and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-27-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR506
I.C. Bhatt, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the State of Gujarat-original respondent No. 1 against the judgment dated 28-3-1979 of the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 883 of 1978.2. Original Petitioner Mr. P.D. Anklesaria, joined the then Police Force of the State of Bombay, in 1935. On bifurcation of the State of Bombay the petitioner was allocated to the State of Gujarat. In the State of Gujarat the petitioner was confirmed as a Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from 1-5-1960. On 27-12-1965 the petitioner was promoted to the higher post and was posted as D.S.P., Bulsar. For want of vacancy he proceeded on Earned Leave from 25-10-1966 and he was again promoted as Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. Crime and Railways Gujarat State, on 12-6-1967 which post he held continuously till his retirement on superannuation on 25-10-1970. The case of the petitioner is that the post of D.S.P. Bulsar and S.P., C.I.D. where cadre posts within the meani...
Tag this Judgment!ShahbuddIn Ismailbhai Ghaswala Vs. Keshavlal Lallubhai Tandel and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-26-1985
Reported in: (1986)2GLR1061
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pardi below Exh. 29 in Regular Civil Suit No. 97 of 1983 filed by the respondent No. 2. alleged tenant against respondent No. 1 the landlord. By the aforesaid order the petitioner, who was not a party to the suit, has been deprived of his possession of the suit premises which are situated at City Survey No. 327 of Vapi town and which consist of two rooms on the ground floor and two rooms on the first floor. The detailed description with regard to area of the property in dispute is given in the plaint a copy of which has been produced on record by the counsel for the petitioner. The description reads as follows:2. The petitioner occupied the property since the year 1968. By sale document dated June 22,1979, the respondent No. 1 herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord') purchased the property from one Kansa Dadabhai forcible possession from the petitioner. Hence, on ...
Tag this Judgment!Harshadbhai C. Patel Vs. Indravadan P. Shah and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-25-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR643
M.B. Shah, J.1. This revision application is filed by the d by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Himatnagar, directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code by die P.S.I. Himatnagar, instead of issuing process.2. The complainant is the Group Branch Manager of Himatnagar Branch of the firm named Laxmichand Bhagaji which carries on business of advancing loans on hire-purchase agreements etc. At the relevant tune i.e. in the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 the accused was working as a Group Branch Manager at Himatnagar. It is the allegation of the complainant that the accused taking some benefit committed criminal breach of trust by advancing a loan of Rs. 12 lacs to M/s. Govind Jeku & Co. at 15% instead of advancing it at the interest rate of 18% by taking undue advantage of his position by submitting a false report to the Head Office a loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- was given to the firm M/s. Krishna Metal Works; in 1983 there was one Incentive Scheme and after recovering the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »