Gujarat Court August 1990 Judgments
Billimora Parsi Jarthosti Anjuman Trust Fund and ors. Vs. Savaksha Gay ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR54
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Since the question involved in this revision is circumscribed to a narrow compass, it would be pertinent to refer a few facts leading to the rise of this revision.Present applicants are the original plaintiffs, who instituted the Regular Civil Suit No. 137 of 1983 against the opponents No. 1 to 5, who are the original defendants. In the course of the proceedings, the plaintiffs applied for amendment in the plaint for addition of two persons on the plaintiff s side and two persons on the defendant's side. This application was necessitated in view of the reconstitution of Trust Board by virtue of the order dated 9-7-1984 under Section 47A of the Bombay Public Trust Act in Misc. Civil Application No. 60 of 1984 by the learned District Judge, at Valsad.2. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the learned District Judge, at Valsad, the original plaintiffs in trial Court, requested that out of the four new Trustees, two trustees were sought to be impleaded as plaintiffs and rem...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Sing Bengali Vs. Gujarat Public Service Commission
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-30-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR382
1. Rule. R. J. Oza waives service. Heard the learned Counsels. The petitioner who is in Government service working as Gynaecologist-Class I on ad hoc basis applied in pursuance of the advertisement No. 153 of Gujarat Public Service Commission for the post of Gynaecologist in Gujarat Medical (Specialists' Services) Class I and the age limit is 35 years as on December 15, 1989 being the last for receipt of applications. The petitioner's birth date is April 16, 1956 and, therefore, he is six months beyond the prescribed age limit. However, this age limit is subject to relaxation and extension in case of Government employees. 2. The petitioner had in pursuance of an earlier advertisement dated February 29, 1988, copy of which is now placed on record, applied for the post of Gynecologist Class I.As per that advertisement the limit was 35 years and the applications were to be received on or before March 18, 1988. Therefore, he was eligible for appointment and he had applied and after the int...
Tag this Judgment!Valsad Jilla Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. D.K. Patel and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-29-1990
Reported in: [1991(63)FLR458]; (1991)1GLR292; (1995)IIILLJ665Guj
Pandya, J.1. The petitioner-Bank has challenged the order of Certifying Officer purporting to be exercising his power under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) claiming that the said Act does not apply to the petitioner-Bank. If that is so, clearly the order of said certifying officer shall be without jurisdiction and therefore, of no effect.2. For this purpose, the learned Advocate Shri Clerk appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Bank has referred to Section 1(3) of the Act to show that the Act applies to 'Industrial Establishment'. He submitted that the petitioner-Bank is not an 'Industrial Establishment' as defined by the Act. We have, therefore to turn to definition of Clause 2(e) contained in the said Act where Industrial Establishment has been defined and for this purpose we may confine ourselves to Sub-clause (i) which reads as under:'(i) an 'industrial establishment' as defined in Clause (ii) of Section 2 of the Paymen...
Tag this Judgment!Kalidas Punjabhai Vyas Vs. Girdharbhai Parsotam Kristi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-27-1990
Reported in: (1991)2GLR1078
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. This petition is filed against the judgment of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application TEN. B.A. 604 of 1982. The petitioner was declared a deemed purchaser of land bearing S. No. 510 and the purchase price was fixed at Rs. 1450.80 by the Mamlatdar & Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Anand. Aggrieved by that order, Maganbhai Purshottambhai and Girdharbhai Purshottambhai, the co-owners of the land, preferred an appeal to the Deputy Collector, Anand. It was dismissed. They therefore, filed the aforesaid revision application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal.2. Sometime thereafter, i.e., on 18-12-1982, Maganbhai died. His heirs were not brought on record and the learned Advocate appearing for both the applicants gave an application to the Tribunal for deleting the name of Maganbhai. The petitioner thereupon raised a contention that the whole revision application abated as the heirs of Maganbhai have not been brought on record at all. The Tribunal rejected the...
Tag this Judgment!D.T. Makwana Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-22-1990
Reported in: (1992)1GLR194
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner, Ex-Mamlatdar, who has since retired with effect from 31-7-1980, has challenged the impugned order imposing penalty of stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative future effect on him.2. At the relevant time the petitioner was working as Mamlatdar, Pardi and was chargesheeted on 5-2-1975 on an allegation that the petitioner and one Mr. Nayak, Deputy Mamlatdar, Pardi were guilty of committing gross irregularities in disposal of 15 cases under the Record of Rights Rules and thereby showing carelessness and bias in the performance of their duties. The details of the irregularities were given in the statement of imputations which are set out in the inquiry report. The gross irregularities in disposal of cases under Record of Rights Rules alleged were that no Rojkams of proceedings were made; no notices were issued to the tenants; the applicant-tenants were not given opportunity to cross-examine the landlord or their witnesses; though the landlords were no...
Tag this Judgment!Delux Land Organizers Vs. the State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-22-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Guj75; (1992)1GLR116
ORDER1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned orders at Annexures 'H' Colly and I whereby while granting exemption under S. 20(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act) on the ground of undue hardship the Government imposed the condition of paying penalty of 20 per cent of the value of the land in accordance with the directions issued in the circular dated 13th June 1979 referred to in the order at Annexure-H collectively. The challenge against the other orders at Annexure-H collectively, by which permission granted under S. 27 by the competent authority was revoked by the Government, was given up at hearing of this petition by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the ground that it did not survive since exemption was granted under S. 20(1)(b) of the said Act and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhim Singhji v. Union of India reported in AIR 1981 SC 234 in which the Supreme Co...
Tag this Judgment!Lilubha Mahobatsinh and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-22-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR266
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. This common appeal by seven accused persons arises out of the judgment and order dated 29th September, 1984, rendered in Sessions Case No. 102 of 1982 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, wherein they (accused) on being tried for the alleged offences under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 of I.P. C, at the end of the trial, came to be convicted for the same and were sentenced to R.I. for life and to pay a fine of 200/- etc. as stated in detail in the impugned order.2. The prosecution case to be briefly stated is that on 4th August, 1983, at 7-00 a.m. on the outskirt of village Senderda of Taluka Sihor, seven accused persons arming themselves with weapons like Axes, Spears, Dhariyas and Sticks, formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit murder of one Bapalal Dhirubhai and in pursuance of the same, all of them assaulted him causing instantaneous death on the spot. This incident was witnessed by two witnesses namely - (i) Jasubha Jorubha; an...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Retired Professors' Association Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR168
C.K. Thakker, J.1. The petitioner-Association of retired Professors attached to the Universities and various affiliated Colleges in the State of Gujarat, has filed this petition challenging the legality and validity of that part of the resolution issued by the Government of Gujarat on October 15, 1984, by which certain retirement benefits are sought to be granted only to those Professors and the members of the Association who retired after April, 1982 and not to those who had retired prior to the said date.Short facts giving rise to the present petition may now be stated:There is University Grants Commission at the Central level which examines various facets of University education and a scheme was prepared by the said Commission relating to the pay-scales of Lecturers and Professors in affiliated Colleges and Universities. A report was submitted by the Commission which was accepted by the Government of India. So far as Government of Gujarat is concerned a policy decision was taken by ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalabhai (Since Decd.) Through His Heirs Shantaben Kalabhai and ors. V ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-1990
Reported in: (1991)1GLR118
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner (since deceased) has challenged the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal passed in Revision Application No. TEN. B.A. 400 of 1979 on 28-9-1979 by which the Tribunal had allowed the Revision Application and set aside the orders of the ALT-Mamlatdar, Baroda and the Deputy Collector holding that the petitioner was the tenant of the lands in dispute. The Tribunal upheld the preliminary objection that the enquiry was incompetent under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').2. The ALT-Mamlatdar had started an enquiry under Section 32G of the said Act and on the basis of the evidence on record he came to the conclusion that the petitioner who was a Schedule Caste person was a tenant of the land bearing Survey Nos. 462, 507 and 508 of Village Kapuria and was deemed to have purchased the land on Tillers' Day, i.e. 1-4-1957. The Deputy Collector Vadodara, upheld the order of the ALT-Mam...
Tag this Judgment!Jayaben Vs. K.B. Harihardas and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Guj94; (1991)1GLR108
ORDER1. The petitioner challenges the conditions imposed by the State Government while allowing her Revision Application and setting aside the orders by which the auction sale in favour of her deceased husband was cancelled, to the effect that the property should be given at the market price to the petitioner and that she will not dispose of the property without the permission of the Collector-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Rajkot for a period of 5 years and further that the property should be used by her personally.2. The facts which emerge from the record are that, evacuee property bearing No. 34 situate at Limbdi was sold in an auction on 9-2-1961 and was purchased by Shri Deva Govind, deceased husband of the petitioner, for an amount of Rs. 10,500/- the reserved price of Rs. 8,390/-. The Regional Settlement Commissioner at Bombay had confirmed the acceptance of the bid of Deva Govind in his letter dated 7-2-1962 and Deva Govind paid 10% of the purchase price as deposit and was reques...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »