Skip to content

Gujarat Court August 1991 Judgments

Browse smarter

Open an 18-section brief on any judgment

Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.

  • AI Brief & Ask
  • Semantic AI Search
  • Devil's Bench

Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.

Aug 06 1991

Amba Gokal Vs. Parbat Bhuta and anr.

Court: Gujarat

Decided on: Aug-06-1991

Reported in: (1992)1GLR399

J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The appellant/original plaintiff has challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), at Amreli, in Special Civil Suit No. 10 of 1974, dismissing the suit for possession of immovable property bearing old Revenue Survey No. 84 (new Revenue Survey No. 208/2), admeasuring about 2 Acres and 22 Gunthas, which is hereinafter referred to as the 'disputed property' for the sake of convenience and brevity. The appellant, inter alia, contended that the agricultural land bearing old Revenue Survey No. 84 and situated, at Kolada, in Kunkavav Taluka of Amreli District, was ancestral property and was partitioned alongwith other ancestral properties between the brothers. Pursuant to the partition, the appellant and his brother, Jivraj Gokal got equal share out of the said land. The total area of the said land was 25 Acres and 16 Gunthas, out of which, according to the appellant's case, he and his brother, Jivraj, got...


Aug 06 1991

State of Gujarat Vs. Sama Alana Abdulla and anr.

Court: Gujarat

Decided on: Aug-06-1991

Reported in: (1993)2GLR1062

B.S. Kapadia, J. 1. The accused were charged for the Offences under Section 3(1)(a), (b) and (c) read with Section 9 as well as for the offence under Section 10 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 on the allegation that on 4th July, 1986 at about 5-00 p.m., one blue print map dated 11th June, 1967, prepared for the supply-line by the Garrison Engineer was obtained by the accused No. 1 with intention for being used for the purpose prejudicial to the external and internal safety and security of India, inasmuch as it was for the object of supplying the same to the institution like Intelligence of Pakistan through the accused No. 2.2. The said charge was framed on 3rd April, 1989. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and thereafter the trial proceeded.3. The facts of the case as revealed from the evidence of the witnesses can be briefly stated as under:One Ghenukhan Jafrukhan, a Constable in B.S.F., was discharging his duty at Khavda in Kachchh District and his duty was to stop the persons cr...


Aug 05 1991

Commission of Income-tax Vs. M.K. Shivraj Singhji

Court: Gujarat

Decided on: Aug-05-1991

Reported in: [1991]192ITR120(Guj)

R.C. Mankad, J.1. The Income-tax Officer computed the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1972-73 at Rs. 2,48,764, which, inter alia, included income from a self-occupied property on the same basis as in the earlier year. The Commissioner of Income-tax called for and examined the records and proceedings of the assessment and noticed that the computation of income from property was not correctly made by the Income-tax Officer, inasmuch as, in the opinion of the Commissioner, the annual letting value ought to have been taken on the basis of the value of the property disclosed by the assessee in his wealth-tax return. It appears that, for the purpose of wealth-tax, the value of the property disclosed was Rs. 1,90,800. Therefore, according to the Commissioner, the annual letting value of the property, for the purpose of income-tax, ought to have been adopted at Rs. 9,540 as against Rs. 2,500 adopted by the Income-tax Officer in his assessment order. As the Income-tax Offic...


Aug 05 1991

Dakshaben Dineshbhai Patel Vs. Dineshbhai Bhulabhai Patel and ors.

Court: Gujarat

Decided on: Aug-05-1991

Reported in: (1991)2GLR1023

C.K. Thakker, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner for a writ of Habeas Corpus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling upon respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4 to produce the petitioner's daughter Rakhee and son Nayan and to give custody thereof to her.2. To appreciate the real controversy in question, necessary facts may now be briefly stated.It is the case of the petitioner (Dakshaben) that she is a permanent resident of Lenasia, Transwal. The first respondent-Dineshbhai was born at Johannesburg and is also a citizen of South Africa. Said Dineshbhai married to the petitioner on March 13, 1984 through the Court of Lenasia, South Africa. After the marriage, both the petitioner as well as the first respondent were staying together at Johannesburg as wife and husband and during the wedlock, the petitioner gave birth to a daughter Rakhee on December 18, 1984 and a son Nayan on May 24, 1986. According to the petitioner, all of them went to U.K. for a pleasure trip in...


Aug 05 1991

T.S. Rabari Vs. Government of Gujarat and anr.

Court: Gujarat

Decided on: Aug-05-1991

Reported in: (1991)2GLR1035

C.K. Thakker, J.1. A substantial question of general public importance having far-reaching effect has been raised in the present group of petitions. In view of the challenge to the constitutional validity of certain statutory rules, some petitions were placed for admission as well as for final hearing before the Division Bench. In view of the fact that a similar question was pending before the Division Bench, the learned single Judge has also referred some petitions to the Division Bench and that is how all these matters are before us for final hearing.Facts:2. For the purpose of appreciating the controversy in question, it may be necessary to state facts in the first petition briefly. In Special Civil Application No. 1816 of 1989, it is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Range Forest Officer Class III on November 2, 1974 and was promoted to the post of Assistant Conservation of Forests, Class II which is a gazetted post. A charge-sheet dated August 21, 1984 was served...


Aug 02 1991

Puj Khengar Nyalchand and ors. Vs. Thacker Shankerlal Naranji and ors.

Court: Gujarat

Decided on: Aug-02-1991

Reported in: (1992)1GLR440

J.N. Bhatt,.J.1. By this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge of Kutch at Bhuj, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 128 of 1975, by invoking the aids of the provisions of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, ('Code' for short hereinafter).2. A short, but very substantial and significant, following question of law which has surfaced in this appeal is with regard to the right to recover possession in respect of mortgaged property in which appellants' claim tenancy rights.Whether the defendants (appellants) who were tenants previous to the mortgage were entitled to retain possession of the mortgaged property on redemption either as contractual tenants or as statutory tenantsIn order to appreciate the merits of the appeal and challenge against it, it would be necessary to refer the relevant material facts giving birth to the present appeal.3. The appellants are the original defendants Nos. 1 to 9 and respondents Nos. 1...


Aug 02 1991

Mankuvarba Manaharsinh Vaghela Vs. Tharad Nagar Panchayat and anr.

Court: Gujarat

Decided on: Aug-02-1991

Reported in: (1992)1GLR375

R.C. Mankad, J.1. Petitioner, who is widow of the deceased employee of Tharad Nagar Panchayat-respondent No. 1 (herein 'Panchayat' for short) has filed this petition seeking direction against the Panchayat and the State Government to pay to her family pension from the date of the death of her husband.2. Petitioner's husband Manaharsinh Bhagvansinh Vaghela ('Deceased' for short) was employed as Clerk by the Panchayat on November 8, 1971. He continued to be employed as Clerk by the Panchayat till he died on January 12, 1986. It would, therefore, appear that he died in harness and when he died he had completed more than 14 years service. Petitioner claims that she is entitled to family pension under the Family Pension Scheme applicable to Government servants. She, therefore, made representation to the Panchayat on April 13, 1987 to give her family pension with effect from the date of the death of her husband. The Panchayat, however, by its reply dated July 19, 1988 stated that the Panchay...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial