Gujarat Court July 1990 Judgments

Narayanbhai Ajmalbhai Chavda Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: (1990)2GLR1185

A.P. Ravani, J.1. Rule. Mr. R.J. Oza waives service of rule on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. D. D. Vyas waives service of rule on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 and 4.2. The petitioner is serving as junior clerk. After his appointment he was required to passpre-service training examination within the prescribed number of chances. The examination was to be held on June 23 and 24, 1989. The petitioner was to appear at the examination, but could not appear at the examination on account of the fact that he suddenly fell ill. Therefore, the petitioner requested that the examination held may be treated as a chance availed of by him. This request has been turned down by the respondents. Hence the petition.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to circular dated 16-5-1989 produced at Annexure 'B' to the petition wherein it is stated that in case a candidate is not in a position to appear at the examination for the reasons beyond his control, he should give intimat...

Dhirajlal Jasmatbhai Viradiya and anr. Vs. Gujarat State Finance Corpo ...

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: [1991]72CompCas136(Guj); (1990)2GLR1250

G.T. Nanavati, J. 1. The petitioners are carrying on business in the name and style of Bajrang Auto Electric at Rajkot. It is their case that they took on lease a shop from its owner, R. R. Engineering Works, Rajkot, on January 1, 1985. It was an oral lease. Subsequently, on November 28, 1986, they executed a rent note setting out the terms and conditions of the lease. Since October 1, 1985, they are in continuous possession of the shop as a tenant. On December 17, 1987, officers of the respondent-Corporation came to their shop and told petitioner No. 2 to vacate that shop and hand over possession immediately. On a request made by petitioner No. 2, time was given to him to consult his advocate. Petitioner No. 2 then locked the shop and went to consult his advocate.When he returned, he found that the lock was broken open and that another lock was put in its place. The petitioners, on making an inquiry, came to know that the said lock was put by the officers of the Corporation. They furt...

Bai Jiviben Vs. Sakhia Somsinh Mohansinh and ors.

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: AIR1991Guj65; (1990)2GLR587

ORDER1. In this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who purchased a fragment of agricultural land from respondents Nos. 1 to 4 on 15-5-1971 has challenged the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Baroda, under Section 9(1) and Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, as confirmed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Gujarat (Revenue Department) in revision.2. It appears from the impugned orders that the land admeasuring 1 Acre and 33 gunthas of survey No. 1067 situated in the outskirts of Karjan in Baroda District, was sold for Rs. 7,000/- to the petitioner Jiviben Motibhai on 15-5-1971 by the respondents Nos. 1 to 4. When the corresponding entry was made in the revenue record, it was not confirmed and proceeding was taken up under the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). After issuing the necessary notices to the parties, the D...

Kandarpkumar Krishnakumar Dholakia and ors. Vs. Gujarat Public Service ...

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: (1990)2GLR1192

P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the order passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 5688 of 1985 (Reported in 1990 (2) GLR 1058). The appellants herein came forward with the Special Civil Application for issue of a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the results of the appellants at the elimination test held on 30-9-1984 by the Public Service Commission for the purpose of Recruitment to posts of Civil Judges (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrates (First Class) in the Gujarat Judicial Services Class II (Junior Branch) and the appellants have also prayed for a direction to the effect that the appellants be called for interviews to be held for appointment to the said posts.2. It is unnecessary for us to refer to the other prayers made in the Special Civil Application since they are not relevant for the disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal. The learned single Judge of our High...

Shankarbhai Bhulabhai Patel Vs. Government of Gujarat

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: (1991)1GLR37

R.C. Mankad, J.1. Applicant-original petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 2603 of 1990 has filed this Application alleging that Government of Gujarat-opponent herein has willfully and deliberately contravened the interim relief granted by this Court on May 23, 1990 and thereby committed contempt of this Court and praying that the opponent-Government be directed to comply with said interim relief and to restore status quo ante.Facts leading to this Application briefly stated are as follows:Applicant was appointed as Member of Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board ('Board' for short) by an order dated April 17, 1975 under Clause 3 of the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board (Condition of Service) Order, 1964 ('Order' for short) read with Section 210 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). Applicant was again appointed as Member of the Board for a period of six years with effect from April 18, 1981. He was appointed as Chairman of the Board with effect from ...

Farook Haji Ismail Saya Vs. Gavabhai Bhesania

Court: Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Ahmedabad

S.A. Shah, President: (1) This appeal arises out of the judgment of the Surat Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Complaint No. 18 of 1989 decided on 6th April, 1990 by a short order holding that the truck purchased by the appellant was of the value of Rs. 2,21,119/ and thereof the Surat Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The respondent has filed cross-objections. (2) There is no dispute that the appellant-complainant had made a claim for Rs. 28,853.05, the damages suffered by him. (3) Mr. Saraf, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has stated that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court does not depend upon the value of the truck but depends upon the claim made by the complainant. The complainant having made a claim for Rs. 28,850/- the District Forum had the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear this complaint and rejection of the complaint on this preliminary ground of pecuniary jurisdiction is obviously erroneou...

Mahmed Akhtar HuseIn (Alias) Kadar Bhatti Vs. State of Gujarat and ors ...

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: (1991)1GLR305; [1992]198ITR229(Guj)

S.B. Majmudar, J.1. These three special criminal applications under articles 226/227 of the Constitution have been moved by the same petitioner - Mahmed Akhtar Husein alias Kadar Bhatti (a Pakistani national) against the concerned respondents - out of which the main respondents are - State of Gujarat, Commissioner of Income-tax and the Tax Recovery Officer, No. 2, Income-tax Office, Ahmedabad. The grievances voiced in these petitions center round the arrest and detention of the petitioner in civil prison as he is said to have defaulted in paying income-tax dues of Rs. 6,69,635 for the assessment year 1984-85. The petitioner was earlier ordered to be arrested under the provisions of rule 73(2) of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, by orders dated December 5, 1989, and December 22, 1989, issued by the Tax Recovery Officer II, Ahmedabad, and was later ordered to be kept in interim custody pending inquiry by order dated December 30, 1989, passed by the same officer in exercis...

Porbandar Nagarpalika Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: (1991)2GLR991

G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The petitioner is Porbandar Nagarpalika. It has filed this petition against the State Government and the Collector as they are trying to deal with and sell open plots of land situated within the Municipal limits of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that all open plots of land vest in and belong to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, prays, that a suitable writ or order be issued restraining the State and its officers from dealing with open plots of land situated within its Municipal limits and to declare that disposal of S. No. 1-4-1 and other plots by the Government in favour of Jawaharlal Nehru Education Institute and Washermen of Porbandar is illegal and without any authority of law.2. The Government of Saurashtra, by a Notification dated 3rd July, 1950, issued in exercise of the powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, as adapted and applied to the State of Saurashtra, declared that all vacant unso...

Rameshbhai Maganbhai Nayaka Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: (1991)1GLR31

Bhatt, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the detention order passed against him on 21-9-1989, by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 ('the Act' for short hereinafter). The detaining authority passed the detention order with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Sachin Police Station in Surat City.The detaining authority alleged that there were 12 cases filed against the petitioner under the Bombay Prohibition Act during the period from 1986 to 1989 out of which 10 cases were pending in the Court and one case was pending for Police investigation and in one case the petitioner was convicted.2. It was alleged that the petitioner was dealing in illegal liquor and he was engaged in selling and transporting country liquor. It was further alleged that he was harassing persons who refused to ...

Jivanmal Jethamal Vs. Mohmad Aliabdulla, Trust and Trustees Asgarali R ...

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: AIR1991Guj105

ORDER1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed Below Exh. 22 in Civil, Miscellaneous Application No. 120/83 by invoking the aid of the Provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act' for short). When the Revision Application was called out today for hearing, learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Chinoy was absent and the learned Advocate Shri G. R. Shaikh for respondent was present. Having heard Mr. Shaikh and having examined the facts of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the Revision is not maintainable under S. 29 of the Act but would be maintainable under S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence it is 'ordered to be converted into Revision Application under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The short facts giving rise to the present revision may be narrated at this stage. The present petitioner is the original defendant-tenant whereas present opponents are the original plaintiffs-landlords....