Gujarat Court July 1985 Judgments
Gulabdas Maganlal Ganjawala Vs. Narsimhan and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-31-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ467; (1986)1GLR515
ORDERJ.P. Desai, J.1-3. x x x x x x x x x x4. It was contended before the learned Sessions Judge that the Collector did not supply copies of any of the documents mentioned in the tentative reply given by the petitioner to the show cause notice and, therefore, the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of showing cause and, therefore, the order was liable to be set aside. These contentions did not find favour with the learned Sessions Judge. It is true that the petitioner was given reasonable time to reply to the show cause notice, but the petitioner did send the tentative reply before the date of hearing fixed by the Collector. The learned Sessions Judge took the view that the Collector was not bound to supply copies of the documents demanded by the petitioner. He was of the view that the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity to have his say and, therefore, the grievance made bf the petitioner did not have any substance. It is difficult to agree with the view taken by th...
Tag this Judgment!Malganbhai Rasulbhai Vs. Pushpavadan Manilal Desai (Since Decd.) Throu ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-29-1985
Reported in: (1986)2GLR1024
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Despite general atmosphere of non-violent peaceful co existence, sporadic clashes between the two, is the normal feature of the 'legal' relations between landlord and tenant. However, the distinguishing feature of this litigation is that the battle is going on since the year 1964 almost incessantly in the fashion of cold-war skirmishes. On account of certain judicial pronouncements made by the Supreme Court, when the lethal blow was about to be dealt with by the landlord and the tenants were on the brink of being vanquished, the Legislature has stepped in and has amended the provisions of Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ('the Rent Act', for short). How far this amendment has disarmed the landlord and whether it is capable of protecting the tenant in proceedings is the question at the centre of controversy between the parties.First, the facts of the litigation, which has a chequered history.2. The petitioner-landlor...
Tag this Judgment!A.P. Shah and ors. Vs. B.M. Institute of Mental Health, Ahmedabad Thro ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-26-1985
Reported in: (1986)2GLR910
B.K. Mehta, Actg. C.J.1. Since these two petitions, first at the instance of 33 aggrieved workmen challenging the closure of Bakubhai Mangaldas Institute of Mental Health (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute'), and second at the instance of the said Institute challenging the award of arbitration under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act directing reinstatement of 33 workmen-respondents Nos. 2 to 34 of the said petition, raise common questions of law and facts, we intend to dispose them of by this common judgment. In order to appreciate these questions in proper perspective, it is necessary to set out briefly the relevant facts and circumstances which have led to the filing of these two petitions.2. B.M. Institute is a non-profit, research, service and training organisation interested broadly in preventive mental health services. It was originally founded as a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 in the year 1966. It was also registered as a public...
Tag this Judgment!Joshi Chhaganlal Garbaddas (Decd.) Through His Heirs Vishnuprasad and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-23-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR69
R.A. Mehta, J.1. In this Second Appeal the main question of law that arises is whether an issue regarding tenancy arises in the present suit and is required to be referred to the tenancy court under the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act.2. The appellant is the original plaintiff who had filed the suit for redemption of the morgtage property being agricultural land. The suit was contested on the ground that there was an absolute sale and not in mortgage. However the plea of the defendants was negatived and it was held that the suit transaction was a mortgage and the preliminary decree for redemption was passed. The First Appeal to the District Court and the Second Appeal to the High Court failed. Thereafter proceedings for final decree were taken before the trial court. At that stage the respondents-defendants raised a new contention based on Section 25A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, which gives protection to a tenant who becomes usufructuary mortgagee of...
Tag this Judgment!Reliance Textile Industries Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-19-1985
Reported in: [1987]61CompCas756(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J. 1. The applicant company has taken out this summons for direction as to whether the applicant company should recognise the transfer of various shares of Siddhpur Mills Co. Ltd. as particularly described in the schedule annexed as annexure 'B' to the affidavit in support of the judge's summons, and for other consequential reliefs. It should be recalled that directions have been sought by the applicant company in respect of about 1,421 transfer applications by different parties seeking to transfer in all 7,396 shares of Siddhpur Mills Co. Ltd. 2. By the order of this court of July 30, 1982, the official liquidator was directed to submit his report stating his recommendations with reasons in support thereof in respect of each such impugned transaction after inquiring as specified in the directions issued by the aforesaid order. Accordingly, the official liquidator has submitted his report on May 16, 1983. The official liquidator has, in this report, raised objection only in...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Sachivalaya and Allied Offices' Stenographers' Association and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-19-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR228; (1986)IILLJ117Guj
1. The short question which arises for my consideration in this petition is whether the State Government can frame a scheme to make it compulsory for English Stenographers to undergo training in Gujarathi Stenography. 2. The Government of Gujarat has, in exercise of powers conferred by Art. 309 of the Constitution of India, framed recruitment rules for appointment to the post of English Stenographer (First Grade) and English Stenographers (Second Grade), in the lower division of the Subordinate Secretariat Service, there are separate rules for English Stenographers (First Grade) and English Stenographers (Second Grade). Under these Recruitment Rule, candidates selected for the post of English Stenographer (First Grade) and English Stenographer (Second Grade) are required to pass Gujarathi and/or Hindi examination according to the rules framed in that behalf. The rules do not provide for training and passing of examination in Gujarathi Stenography. In other words, under the Recruitment ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. N.N. Prajapati
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-18-1985
Reported in: (1985)2GLR1406
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. The two letters patent appeals are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, our brother R.C. Mankad. J. who was pleased to allow the special civil applications challenging the orders passed by the respective respondents i. e. the Postal Department and the Surveyor General's Office. In the Letters Patent Appeal No. 38 of 1985, the employee was dealt with departmentally and punished with minor punishment; whereas the employee in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 125 of 1985 was dealt with departmentally and removed from service. The Special Civil Application No. 395 of 1985 is filed by an employee of the Postal Department who, at the close of the departmental proceedings, has been visited with punishment of reduction to lower time scale for a period of five years.2. The learned Single Judge allowed the two petitions only on one ground, namely, non-supply of the inquiry officer's report by the disciplinary authority who extensively relied upon his...
Tag this Judgment!Farukbhai Mohamadbhai Surti and anr. Vs. Minor Ajay Ravindrakumar Thro ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-17-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR119
J.P. Desai, J.1. The learned advocate for the appellants was heard at length in this appeal. The learned Advocate Mr. R.H. Mehta now states that he withdraws this appeal. In view of this, this appeal is disposed of as withdrawn. Looking to the facts of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.2. Before parting with this case, I would like to observe here that initially the application for compensation was filed by the applicant against the owner of the scooter and his minor son who was driving the scooter at the time of this incident. The minor had naturally no licence to drive the scooter. Thereafter, purshis Ex. 34 was given by opponents Nos. 1 and 2 to the effect that not the minor opponent but one another fellow was driving the scooter at the time of this incident and, therefore, he was a necessary party to the application for compensation. Thereafter, application Ex. 36 was filed by the claimant-petitioner for joining the said person as opponent No. 3. On th...
Tag this Judgment!Old Government Quarters Employees Cultural Association and ors. Vs. St ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-17-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR327
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Democracy shuns and abhors privileges. Privileged treatment to any particular class of people is not the normal democratic way of functioning. If not total absence of privileges, least possible privileges to a class of people defined on rational basis; and equal treatment to all to the utmost possible extent is the essence of democracy. These ideals are basic to our Constitution. Then how can the claim made by the petitioners who are Government employees to get the premises occupied by them on hire-purchase basis, to the exclusion of others, be accepted? Basically this question requires to be answered in this petition.2. The petitioner No. 1 is an Association known as Old Government Quarters Employees' Cultural Association. The petitioners Nos. 2 to 57 are Government employees who are occupying Government Quarters situated at Rajkot. The quarters are known as 96 Clerks Quarters. The petitioners pray that the Government be directed to transfer the quarters to the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Jayvandana D/O. Sumatilal Chimanlal Shah Vs. Gujarat Housing Board and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-17-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR73
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. In this group of 7 petitions, the common questions of law and facts involved. Hence, at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners belong to the Economically Weaker Section of the Society. The respondent Housing Board had formulated a scheme for housing these poor people under 'Save a Rupee per day and Own Your House Scheme' (hereinafter - Save Rupee Scheme or S.R.D. Scheme), whereby the applicants were required to make an initial deposit of Rs. 1050/- and thereafter to deposit at the rate of Re. 1/- a day, to own a small tenement estimated to cost approximately Rs. 6.000/-. Along with others, the petitioners applied for joining the said S.R.D. Scheme. Subsequently, the said S.R.D. Scheme appears to have run into difficulties as the expected finances were not forthcoming and therefore eventually the said Scheme had to be abandoned. However, the respondent Housing Board made ar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »