Gujarat Court June 1988 Judgments
Ghanchi Pirbhai Kala (Decd.) Through His Heirs Adam Pirbhai and ors. V ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-28-1988
Reported in: (1989)1GLR183
A.P. Ravani, J.1. This litigation has its roots in the partition of the country which took place in the year 1947. The plaintiff, who must have left all his property in Pakistan and migrated to this part of the country, was allotted certain land in January, 1968 in settlement of his claim. Except for brief period he has not enjoyed the possession of the land. He filed the suit for recovery of possession in the year 1973 and succeeded in trial Court in the year 1978. Since then the matter is in appeal. He succeeds in this appeal also. Even so, can any one tell him, with reasonable certainty, as to when shall he get the possession of the land? We do not venture to answer the question. We only hope that all those who feel concerned for the proper management of the system may ponder over the question and may do the needful.2. The appellants herein are original defendants. The respondent-plaintiff filed a Special Civil Suit in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Rajkot for recovery of possessi...
Tag this Judgment!Manilal Ranchhoddas and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-1988
Reported in: (1989)1GLR36
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The plaintiffs who are contractors in respect of trees in forest areas of villages of Gad-Boriad and Wagach Jagir having lost in first round of litigation which resulted into decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Manvinkurve v. Madhavsinghji : [1965]3SCR177 have tried to reagitate the same question by filing suit before the trial Court. They lost in the suit and hence this appeal.2. The appellant-plaintiffs filed a Special Civil Suit in the Court of Civil Judge (SD). Baroda praying that order dated March 27, 1965 (Ex. 70) passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chhota Udaipur cancelling the authorisation granted earlier on November 16 and 28, 1964 for cutting trees and bamboos from the forest area and restraining them from taking away the woods and directing them not to cut wood from the forest area in future was illegal and void. It was also prayed that the order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer directing to pay Rs. 37,006-93 and Rs. 10,178-87 was ille...
Tag this Judgment!Rajput Karansinh Gagji Vs. Sub-divisional Magistrate and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-24-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR1402
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Spl. Cri. Application is for quashing the orders at Annexure 'D' & 'C which are externment orders passed against the petitioner herein. The show cause notice was given as early as on 15-11-1987 and the externment order was passed by the externing authority on 21-9-1987. On appeal, the appellate authority has also confirmed the externment order. The show cause notice and the externment orders were based upon the conclusion of allegations mentioned in the show cause notice.2. These allegations, no doubt, spell-out the place and time of occurence and relates to the offence coming under Chapters 16 and 17 of I.P. Code. Unfortunately, the exterment under show cause notice refers to the offences committed by the petitioner herein as coming under Chapters 12 and 17. We would have, looking to the specific allegations contained in the show cause notice, condoned this defect also observing that it is a mistake which will not go to the root of the case and vitiate...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Gurunath Shalu and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-1988
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas121(Guj); (1989)1GLR581
Ravani, J. 1. A point of importance raised in this appeal is - should a joint tortfeasor be allowed to go scotfree and should the Tribunal have ignored the plea raised by the appellant-corporation, for joining the joint tortfeasor in a claim petition before determining the question as regards the respective negligence and liability arising out of the accident 2. The claimants were going in an autorikshaw bearing No. GRV 528 in G.I.D.C. Estate, Panoli, and were passing through national highway No. 8. At that time, State transport bus bearing No. GRR 9935 which was coming from opposite side collided with the rickshaw. The accident took place on December 28, 1984, at about 9.00 a.m. On account of the accident, one Balkrishna Shahu received fatal injuries and died. 3. The father, sister and brothers of the deceased preferred a claim petition. In the claim petition, the owner of the rickshaw and the insurance company of the rickshaw had not been joined. The appellant-corporation contended t...
Tag this Judgment!Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Gurunath Shahu and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-1988
Reported in: 1(1989)ACC414; 1989ACJ314
A.P. Ravani, J.1. A point of importance raised in this appeal is--Should a joint tort-feasor be allowed to go scotfree and should the Tribunal have ignored the plea raised by the appellant-Corporation, for joining the joint-tortfeasor in claim petition before determining the question as regards the respective negligence and liability arising out of the accident?2. The claimants were going in an autorikshaw bearing No. GRV 528 in G.I.D.C. Estate, Panoli and were passing through the national high way No. 8. At that time S.T. Bus bearing No. GRR 9935 which was coming from opposite side collided with the rikshaw. The accident took place on December 28, 1984 at about 9.00 a.m. On account of the accident one Balkrishna Shahu received fatal injuries and died.3. The father, sister and brothers of the deceased preferred claim petition. In the claim petition the owner of the rikshaw and the insurance company of the rikshaw had not been joined. The appellant Corporation contended that rikshaw own...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayben Vashram Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-21-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Guj75; (1988)2GLR1412
Ravani, J.1. In respect of proof. of documents, how does proof of a Will differ from other documents This distinction bad not been properly grasped by the trial Court and hence the appellant plaintiff who succeeded in persuading the trial Court that the valid execution of Will in question was proved fads in this appeal solely on the ground of absence of proof of legal and valid execution of the Will.The appellant original plaintiff filed a special civil suit for declaration and injunction to the effect that the residential house called Parmar House7situated at Vijay Plot, Street No. 13 in the city of Rajkot exclusively belongs 'to her and that defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 i. e. State of Gujarat and the officers of the Sales j Tax Department had no right to effect recovery of the alleged dues of Sales Tax payable by deceased husband of the plaintiff (Naranbhai Maganbhai) by effecting sale of the property in question. The suit was resisted by defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on the ground that t...
Tag this Judgment!Pratapbhai S. Jibhai Mahida Vs. the Dist. Magistrate and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1250; (1988)2GLR1352
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The petitioner was detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (hereafter referred to as 'the PASA') by an order dt. 24-5-1987. In order to enable him to contest the election and to enable him to attend the meetings of Nadiad Municipality as he was the Vice-President of that municipality, he was granted parole from time to time. Parole was granted to the petitioner for two days on 16-7-1987. He was required to surrender at Sabarmati Central Prison on 18-7-1987. Instead of surrendering on that day, the petitioner surrendered to the jail authorities on 24-7-1987. As the petitioner thus committed breach of the bond on which he was released on parole, the Government on 28-7-1987 directed the District Magistrate, Kheda to take appropriate action against the petitioner, under the provisions of the PASA. On the basis of this direction, the District Magistrate wrote to the D. S. P,, Kheda on 31-7-1987 to recover from the petitioner the amount p...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkaran R. Rajput Vs. Vijay Co-operative Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-1988
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas432(Guj); (1988)2GLR655
Gokulakrishnan, J.1. This Letter Patent Appeal is against the order passed by the learned single judge in Spl. C.A. No. 2776 of 1988. The appellant herein came forward with this application to issue an appropriate writ in order in quash and set aside the orders passed below exhibits 9 and 10, by the Co-operative Registrar's nominee in Lavad Case No. 817 of 1988, which was ultimately confirmed by the Co- operative Tribunal in Revision Application No. 60 of 1988. 2. The learned single judge has dismissed the said special civil application and has also refused to grant stay in order to enable the appellant herein to prefer an appeal before this court. 3. In order to appreciate the contentions raised before this court by learned counsel, Mr. F.A. Memon, for the purpose of admission of the Letters Paten Appeal, we have to refer to certain facts. 4. The appellant herein is a partner in the second respondent-firm. The second respondent-firm applied for a loan to the first respondent herein am...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkaran R. Rajput Vs. Vijay Co-op. Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR1451
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the order passed by the learned single Judge in Spl. C.A. No. 2776 of 1988. The appellant herein came forward with this application to issue an appropriate writ in order to quash and set aside the orders passed below Exhs. 9 and 10 by the Co-operative Registrar's nominee in Lavad Case No. 817 of 1988, which was ultimately confirmed by the Co-operative Tribunal in Revision Application No. 60 of 1988.2. The learned single Judge has dismissed the said Special Civil Application and has also refused to grant stay in order to enable the appellant herein to prefer an appeal before this Court.3. In order to appreciate the contentions raised before this Court by the learned Counsel Mr. F.A. Memon for the purpose of admission of the Letters Patent Appeal, we have to refer to certain facts.4. The appellant herein is a partner in the 2nd respondent-firm. The 2nd respondent-firm applied for a loan to the 1st respondent herein, amount...
Tag this Judgment!Mangalprasad Jethalal Upadhyaya Vs. Tofikbhai Karimbhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-1988
Reported in: (1988)2GLR1419
D.H. Shukla, J.1. The appellant, Mangalprasad Jethalal Upadhyay, lodged a private complaint dated 3-1-1979 in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bagasara Vadiya, as the power-of-attorney-holder for and on behalf of Hiralal Parbhuram Tapkirwala, a registered partnership firm, having its Registered Office at Yeola, district Nasik Maharashtra, against unknown under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. In his complaint, he averred that his principals are manufacturers of Beedies which were sold under the trade-mark, the specimen of which he produced with his complaint. He averred that the beedies produced by his principals had acquired a reputation in the market and that his principals had a very large business in the same subject-matter. He averred that the trade-mark was duly registered under the Act, and its Registration No. 176239. He averred that his principals had come to know that in the mar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »