Gujarat Court January 1991 Judgments
Gunvantlal Manekchand Vs. Atulkumar and Company
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Guj54; (1991)2GLR1000
ORDER1. The respondent who is original plaintiff had filed summary suit No. 4757/82 in the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad for the purpose of recovering an amount of Rs. 1,726.50 from the petitioner who was original defendant in that suit. The learned Judge decreed the suit by judgment and order dt. 19th June, 1984. Therefore, an application for new trial under S.. 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Court Adt, 1882 was filed by the present petitioner before the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court with a prayer to set aside the, judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge and to hold a fresh trial. The said application was filed on 3rd July, 1984 and was registered as New Trial Appln. No. 23/84. The appellate Bench relied on the case of E. C. Pareira v. Somani & Co. Ltd., 1958 (60) Bom LR 1369, and came to the conclusion that a period of limitation for filing an application under S. 38 is governed by S. 38 itself and no power is given either under the Limitation Act or under the R...
Tag this Judgment!Yakubhai Ahmedji Mistri Vs. ImamuddIn HusenuddIn Kadri
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-30-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Guj180; (1991)2GLR898
ORDER1. The present revision arises under the following circumstances in which there is no dispute as to the facts:The present respondent as a landlord of premises let out to the present petitioner had filed an H.R.P. Suit No. 2010/ 73 for a decree of possession of the premises and for recovery of rent. The grounds for seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises were that the tenant was in arrears of rent exceeding six months and that the landlord required the suit premises for personal use and occupation. In the said suit the tenant-petitioner filed his written statement whereby he contended that the standard rent could only be Rest. 10/- per month inclusive of municipal taxes and education less as against the contractual rent of Rs. 25/- per month plus municipal taxes plus education less as claimed by the landlord. Thus, the tenant invoked the powers of the Rent Court under S. 11 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 to determine the standard re...
Tag this Judgment!Sajipur Bogha Nagar Palika Octroi Karmachari Mandal and anr. Vs. Ahmed ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-29-1991
Reported in: (1991)2GLR956; (1994)IIILLJ431Guj
Ravani, J.1. Is there any valid ground on the basis of which the respondent-Municipal Corporation can refuse to abide by the direction given in the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 152 of 1985 decided on December 21, 1985? This and some other related questions arise in these petitions.At the request and with the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties both the matters are ordered to be heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. Special Civil Application No. 1362 of 1986 is filed by a Trade Union called Saijpur Bogha Nagar Palika Octroi Karmachari Mandal and by one of the members of the Union who is also an employee of Saijpur Bogha Nagar Palika. The petition pertains to 89 employees whose names are mentioned at Serial No. 1 to 89 in Annexure 'A' to the petition. In respect of employees at Serial No. 90 to 343 at Annexure 'B' the petition is not pressed. One employee (Serial No. 49) named Parmar Hare...
Tag this Judgment!Ambalal Motibhai Patel, Chairman, New English School Trust Vs. Hansabe ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-29-1991
Reported in: (1991)2GLR713
S.D. Shah, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal in Appeal No. 18 of 1979 whereby the Tribunal refused to grant approval to the action of the petitioner-Management to dismiss the respondent No. 1 from service. The said judgment and order is dated 28-2-1980 and produced at Annexure 'F' to the petition, the D.E.O.-respondent No. 1 herein vide his order, dated 4th October, 1979 refused to grant permission to the proposed action of dismissal of respondent No. 1 from service in exercise of his power under Section 36(1 )(b). The said order of the Dist. Education Officer is confirmed by the Tribunal and being aggrieved by the said order the school management has filed the present petition.2. Before I deal with the legal submissions made by Mr. S.N. Shelat, learned Advocate for petitioner, short facts giving raise to the present petition are stated hereinbelow:(i) The respondent No. 1 wa...
Tag this Judgment!Ambalal Shankarbhai Patel Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-1991
Reported in: (1992)2GLR1317
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 30th August, 1989 at Annexure 'B' to the petition, passed by the respondent No. 2-Regional Passport Officer, Ahmedabad, holding that adoption by Hindus not domiciled in India is invalid under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and that an order should have been obtained from the Court under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and has prayed for a writ of mandamus on the respondents to issue passport in the name of minor Gaurangkumar Suryakant Patel, who is said to have been adopted by Suryakant Ambalal Patel.2. As per the Deed of Adoption dated 12th July, 1988, at Annexure 'A', it was declared that minor Gaurangkumar was given in adoption by performing 'Dutt Hom' ceremony on 5-7-1988 by his widowed mother, Sharmishtaben to Patel Suryakant Ambalal, resident of Main Street, Los Angeles, United States of America and his wife Sushilaben who are described as the adoptive parents of the child. As the adoptive ...
Tag this Judgment!Dalabhai Bhimabhai Patel Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: (1991)2GLR872; (1992)IILLJ720Guj
1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has brought in challenge the departmental inquiry initiated against him pursuant to the charge-sheet at Annexure 'C' dated May 15, 1980. The charge is issued on the ground that on the night of February 14, 1976, the petitioner had misbehaved in a manner which was not becoming of a Police Officer. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as Armed Police Constable in 1964 and he was carrying on his duties honestly and diligently. That on the night of February 14, 1976, he was alleged to have indulged in committing offences punishable under Secs. 376 and 452 of the I.P. Code on the allegation that he had forcibly entered the house of Police Constable Mohansinh Survisinh. For this alleged offence, he was tried before the City Sessions Court No. 3 in Sessions Case No. 80 of 1976. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the petitioner of the offence and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for a period of one year and to pay f...
Tag this Judgment!The Sabarkantha Jilla Ru Utpadakoni Cooperative Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Guj89; (1991)2GLR852
ORDER1. This petition is filed by the petitioner Co-operative Society registered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, for an appropriate writ, direction and or order directing the respondent-authorities to pay to the petitioner-society remaining amount of cash subsidy of Rs. 14,37,500, with interest at the rate of 12% with effect from March 2, 1984 till the date of payment of the amount since the petitioner unlawfully and illegally deprived of the said payment by the respondents.2. It is the case of the petitioner that it is a co-operative society registered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. It is doing business I n manufacturing cotton yarn. The members of the, petitioner-society are agriculturists growing cotton and co-operative societies of various villages of Sabarkantha District. It is stated in the petition that at the time when the petition was filed, there were about 7000 members of the petitioner society and about 1200 employees were working. I...
Tag this Judgment!Niruben Vs. Kiritkumar Ramanlal Rava and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Guj22; (1991)1GLR390
ORDER1. This Revision Application under S. 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ('the Rent Act' for short) is directed against the judgment and decree dated April 28, 1982, passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No. II of 1980, by which the said Appellate Bench dismissed that appeal which was directed against the decree dated November 14, 1979, passed by the learned Judge of the Small Caused Court in H.R.P. Suit No. 2265 of 1973, whereby the revision petitioners were ordered to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondents on or before May 14, 1980. The learned trial Judge by his judgment and decree had also directed the revision petitioners to pay to the respondents, a certain sum by way of arrears of rent, etc., but with that part of the decree, I am not concerned in this revision petition. Similarly, the learned trial Judge had also made orders regarding mesne profits, but that orde...
Tag this Judgment!indiraben Wd/O. Jitendrakumar Badamshi Fadiya and ors. Vs. Narayanbhai ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: (1994)1GLR422
R.A. Mehta, J.1. Deceased Jitendrakumar died in a motor accident and his widow and four minor children filed a claim petition for compensation. The compensation was assessed at Rs. 1,41,000/- by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 94,000/- to the claimants and refused the 1/3rd compensation amounting to Rs. 47,000/- on the ground that the father and mother of deceased Jitendrakumar were not joined as parties. Therefore, the only question that arises in this appeal by the claimants is whether this amount of Rs. 47,000/- is also required to be awarded. If yes, to whom?2. Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, provides that an application for compensation arising out of a motor accident may be made, (b) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatived of the deceased, and the proviso reads as under:Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the ap...
Tag this Judgment!indiraben and ors. Vs. Narayanbhai Jugabhai Rabari and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: II(1994)ACC458
R.A. Mehta, J.1. Deceased Jitendra Kumar died in a motor accident and his widow and four minor children filed a claim petition for compensation. The compensation was assessed at Rs. 1,41,000/- by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 94,000/- to the claimants and refused the 1/3rd compensation amounting to Rs. 47,000/- on the ground that the father and mother of deceased Jitendra Kumar were not joined as parties. Therefore, the only question that arises in this appeal by the claimants is whether this amount of Rs. 47,000/- is also required to be awarded. If Yes, to whom?2. Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, provides that an application for compensation arising out of a motor accident may be made, (b) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, and the proviso reads as under:Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »