Gujarat Court December 1985 Judgments
Pramod Gohel and ors. Vs. Divyaben Tushar Jhala and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-26-1985
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas668(Guj)
1. The award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Narol is sought to be challenged by way of the present appeal. An amount of Rs. 3,50,000 was awarded to the claimants for the death of the deceased, Tushar Jhala, who was a chemical engineer. The amount awarded cannot in any way be assailed. However, Mr. Soparkar, learned advocated for Mr. S.B. Vakil, for the appellant urged that the court has awarded penal interest and has mentioned that if the appellant failed to deposit the amount within a period of three months, interest rate shall be 12%. As that amounted to penal interest, we have issued notice to the claimant and pursuant to the said notice, Mr. Chokashi, learned advocate appeared for the claimant. Mr. Chokashi could not satisfy that the said interest at the rate of 12% on the appellant failing to deposit the said amount could have been awarded. Mr. Chokashi only urged that even banks would have awarded 12% interest if the amount is deposited in fixed deposit ...
Tag this Judgment!Valiben Hirabhai Bajania Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-24-1985
Reported in: (1986)2GLR907
A.P. Ravani, J.1. By consent of the parties the matter is ordered to be heard today.2. The petition is directed against the respondent-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation which has failed to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the petitioner as per award dated March 21, 1985 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kheda at Nadiad, in Motor Accident Claims Application No. 300 of 1982. As per the award, the respondent-corporation was required to pay Rs. 61,100/-with proportionate cost and with 6% interest till the amount is paid. It may be noted that in the award specific direction was given that the amount awarded shall be deposited with the Tribunal within four months from the date of the award failing which the petitioner would be entitled to claim interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Despite the aforesaid direction, the respondent-corporation has not deposited the amount with the Tribunal and hence this petition.3. Earlier on December 13, 1985, by ad interim order, the...
Tag this Judgment!Darbara Singh and Co. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-24-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR518
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The applicant-plaintiff instituted a Civil Suit to recover a sum of Rs. 62,62,273-59 ps. from the State Government. That suit was instituted in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad and was numbered Civil Suit No. 333 of 1964. In that suit a preliminary issue was raised as to whether the Court had jurisdiction to hear the suit. The learned Judge in the City Civil Court by his judgment and order dated 23rd March 1967 held that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction, ab initio, to entertain and try the suit and accordingly directed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to proper Court. After this order was passed, the plaintiff presented the suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Junagadh on 6th April 1967. On re-presentation of the plaint in the Junagadh Court, it came to be numbered as Special Suit No. 14 of 1967. That suit was partly decreed by the trial Court. In the cross-suit filed by the State of Gujarat against the said pla...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Rasiklal Jadavji Patel an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-23-1985
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC579
D.C. Gheewala, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surendranagar in Claim Petition No. 59 of 1976. Respondent No. 1 Rasiklal, a boy aged about 20 years was travelling by a truck on 8-4-1976, at about 4.00 p m. he got down from the truck and while be was standing by the side of the truck, one ST Bus bound for Jamnagar was passing at an excessive speed and it knocked him down. He received injuries, he was removed to the Hospital, he was treated for an inordinately long period and as a result of the injuries sustained he suffered from permanent partial disability. He, therefore, claimed Rs. 34,000/- by way of compensation.2. The claim was resisted by the ST Corporation on the ground that no ST bus was involved in the accident and the claim for an amount of Rs. 34,000/- was grossly exaggerated.3. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the ST bus was involved in the accident that a ...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs. Bharat Petroleum Cor ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-18-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR585
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Why consider a Government Company intelligible from competing with others even when it is being considered eminently suitable for carrying in the business in question in difficult time and situations? The petitioner, which is a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 has raised this question and has challenged the legality and validity of the action of respondent Oil Company by which the petitioner is considered ineligible for LPG distributorship. The petitioner is already working as Dealer in L.P.G. (Liquid Petroleum Gas) of different Oil-Companies at Surat, Nadiad, Palanpur and Ahmedabad. The petitioner is also working as dealer in petrol at Gandhidham and Gandhinagar. In respect of dealership of L.P.G. at Bhuj, the petitioner Company is working by way of interim arrangement because some dispute is pending in this Court with regard to the dealership of the same. But recently the petitioner as denied its right to compete with o...
Tag this Judgment!Pravinchandra Ravjibhai AmIn Vs. Babubhai Chhotabhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-18-1985
Reported in: (1986)2GLR1405
R.C. Mankad, J.1. The short question which arises for my consideration in this revision application is whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the provisions of Order 18 Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure were mandatory and refusing to permit the petitioner who is original defendant to examine himself as a witness.2. The respondent who is original plaintiff had filed a suit being Rent Suit No. 122 of 1976 in the Court of Small Causes at Vadodara for recovery of arrears of rent and other reliefs. The petitioner who is original defendant resisted the suit and amongst other things contended that the rent demanded from him by the respondent is not the standard rent. Petitioner prayed for determination of the standard rent of the suit premises. It appears that the suit premises was valued by the Engineer of the Public Works Department. Petitioner examined the Engineer as his witness before examining himself when he led his evidence. Petitioner thereafter gave applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Bhailalbhai Talsibhai Vs. Chandulal Girdharlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-18-1985
Reported in: (1986)2GLR990
R.C. Mankad, J.1. This revision application by the original defendant is directed against the judgment and order dated March 8, 1983, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vadodara holding that since the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act') were not applicable to the suit premises, he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondent original plaintiff.2. Respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for possession of the premises occupied by the petitioner for residence and Gabhan (open plot of land) adjoining the said premises. The suit premises which were let out to the petitioner at monthly rent of Rs. 40/- are situate in village Vadasala in the area under Vadasala Gram Panchayat. Respondent had also prayed for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 840/- from the petitioner. Petitioner resisted the respondent's suit and amongst other things contended that since the ...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Minor Manohar Lal Lilaram by His ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-17-1985
Reported in: 2(1986)ACC115
D.C. Gheewala, J.1. The cross-objections and the appeal are permitted to be withdrawn before effective hearing, with no order as to costs.2. The applicant-claimant who was a minor of the appeal now become major. Under the circumstances, the withdrawal of the appeal and the cross-objections do not appear to be against the interest of the applicant claimant who was a minor then.It appears that Rs. 7000/- were deposited in a nationalised bank for the benefit of the minor claimant who is now major. After the fixed deposit matures, the Tribunal is directed to pass necessary orders regarding reinvestment or handing over the amount to the claimant as the circumstances might merit. If the Tribunal thinks that the amount should be reserved for the claimant, the Tribunal will be at liberty to reinvest the amount or in case the claimant establishes that he requires the amount for starting a business and if there is concrete evidence on that score, the tribunal will be at liberty to hand over the ...
Tag this Judgment!The United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Narendra Kuma ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-17-1985
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC95
J.P. Desai, J.1. One Narendrakumar Devshi died in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 22-12-1976. The vehicle involved in the incident was a station wagon bearing No. GJP. 1493 in which the deceased Narendrakumar and one other person were travelling. The deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by him, while the other person sustained injuries, MAC Applications were filed before the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Jamnagar, being MAC Application No. 31 of 1977 by the heirs and legal representative of the deceased Narendrakumar, while the other being MAC Applications No. 32 of 1977 by the injured Natvarlal Ragnath. The claim petitions were contended by the opponents including the Insurance Company which has filed this appeal. The learned Tribunal reached the conclusion that the deceased died on account of rash and negligent driving of the station wagon by the driver and assessed the compensation at Rs. 59550/- for the death of the deceased Narendrakumar. The Tribunal ...
Tag this Judgment!Chimanlal Estate Owners Association Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporatio ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-17-1985
Reported in: (1986)2GLR1323
Bhatt, J.1. This is a petition by an Association, registered under the Bombay Non-Trading Corporations Act. The Respondent No. 1 herein is the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and the Respondent No. 2 is the State of Gujarat. The petitioner-Association has various premises constructed on a plot situated on the Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. The petitioner-Association had submitted its first plan for construction on that plot and that plan was sanctioned on 1-2-80 and the due commencement certificate was given. Then the revised plan was submitted on 23-3-81, which was rejected 23-6-81 and the second revised plan submitted on 27-12-82 claiming 1-40 F.S.I. (Floor Space Index) was also rejected on 17-2-83. The petitioner alleged that the revised plans had been rejected on the sole ground that the available F.S.I. was 1 and not 1-40 as claimed. The petitioner had, therefore, ultimately filed this petition for the following prayers to be found at page 32:(b) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to decl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »