Gujarat Court July 1993 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.
State of Gujarat Vs. Hasmukhbhai V. Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-16-1993
Reported in: I(1994)DMC275; (1993)2GLR1412
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Kiritbhai Jashabhai Patel, brother of the deceased Pushpa Hasmukhbhai Patel addressed the Registered Letter dated 17.5.93 to two Judges of this Court, myself and my learned brother K.G. Shah, J. stating that on 26.10.92 Hasmukhbhai-husband of Pushpaben gave stick blows to Pushpaben and they gave poison to Pushpaben and killed her. It is also stated that his sister Pushpaben was admitted in private Hospital of Dr. Jayantbhai Acharya at Baroda in unconscious condition on 26.10.92 at 9.00 a.m. and at about 6.00 p.m. she was removed to Bhailal Amin Hospital of Baroda where Dr. Jani examined her and gave oxygen. After three days Pushpaben died in the hospital. At the time of Post Mortem, Doctor told that she was made to take poisonous drug after beating her. Therefore, he lodged complaint against the accused. They were arrested by the police. Except Hasmukhbhai others were released on bail by the Court. On 22.4.93, he was down with malaria and was not able to remain prese...
Bai Chanchal Wd/O. Gandhabhai Shridharbhai and ors. Vs. Darji Shankerl ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-16-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR262
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The decision rendered by the learned Assistant Judge of Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol on 14 December, 1976 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 84 of 1973 is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the original plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 52 of 1971. By the appellate decision under challenge in this appeal, the lower appellate Court accepted the appeal of the original respondents against the decision of the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) at Dehgam rendered on 21st August, 1972 in Regular Civil Suit No. 52 of 1971. It is needless to say that the trial Court accepted the case of the plaintiffs and decreed their suit for specific performance of the agreement set up in the case.2. The original respondents to this suit were the defendants and the original appellants were the plaintiffs before the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 52 of 1971. Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 herein were minors in the suit proceedings and on their behalf appellant No. 1 herein, their mother, ...
Jayantilal Tribhovandas Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-15-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR757
D.G. Karia, J.1. The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the decision dated July 9, 1984 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN.B.A. 2 of 1983. By the impugned decision, the Tribunal confirmed the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below dismissing the revision application of the present petitioner.2. The petitioner filed the requisite Form No. 2 under Section 10 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (for short 'the Land Ceiling Act') before the Mamlatdar, stating the lands held by the petitioner. The Additional Mamlatdar and A.L.T., Vadodara, by his judgment and order in Ceiling Case No. 2 of 1976 held that the petitioner held the land, Acres 25 Juntas 28, in excess of the ceiling area. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Mamlatdar, preferred Ceiling Appeal No. 5 of 1982 in the Court of the Assistant Collector, Vadodara. The Assistant Collector by his decision dated Octo...
Mohanif Abdulbhai Mullick Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-15-1993
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1057
K.G. Shah, J.1. Rule. Mr. S.P. Dave, learned A.P.P. waives service of the Rule for the Respondents. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we have decided to hear the Rule today, and even Mr. S.P. Dave, learned A.P.P. sees reason behind this course being adopted. Therefore, the petition is finally heard today, and shall stand disposed of by this judgment.2. It is distressing that within the span of one week, we have come across a second matter wherein the order of externment passed by the externing authority has been dealt with by the same Deputy Secretary Mr. J.M. Parmar, acting on behalf of the State Government in the Home Department (Special), wherein it is manifest that the Deputy Secretary, either does not know the way in which the appellate powers conferred upon the Government under Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act have to be exercised, or that he does not understand what he writes in his appellate order. The aforesaid observation of ours will be immediately clea...
Budhalal Chhotalal Zaveri Vs. Lilavatiben Ratilal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-15-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR209
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Petitioner is the owner of the shop premises bearing M.C. No. 2868-2868/1 of Kalupur, Ward No. 2-B, at Ahmedabad. One deceased Sakarchand Kasturchand was the monthly tenant of the said shop, which is hereinafter to be referred to as 'the suit shop.' The tenant-Sakarchand was let the suit shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-for business purpose, in 1961, and the tenant was using the suit shop for the purpose of running his coal business.2. The original tenant-Sakarchand had entered into a partnership with opponent No. 5, Vrujlal Vadilal, from 25th November, 1960, and it was run in the name of 'Mis. Vrujial Kiritkumar & Co.' Tenant-Sakarchand died on 28th January, 1961, Upon his death, the partnership came to be dissolved. Opponent No. 1, Lilavati is the widow of deceased -tenant and opponents No. 2 3 and 4 are the minor children of the deceased-tenant. The landlord was issuing rent receipts in the name of Lilavatiben Ratilal after the demise of the original tenant. Lilava...
Kavita Benefit Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joint Secretary, Revenue Department and a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-14-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR649
M.S. Parikh, J.1. In this petition under Article 227, of the Constitution of India the petitioner has brought under challenge the order dated 28th September, 1992 passed by the Joint Secretary, Revenue Department of the State of Gujarat in sua motu Revision under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The short ground on which this matter can be disposed of is that the power under Section 34 of the Act has been invoked after passage of 2 years and 7 months, that is to say, after passage of unreasonable period.3. For the purpose of appreciating the aforesaid ground pressed into service on behalf of the petitioner it would be necessary to state some uncontroverted facts which have been narrated in the petition.The Kavita Benefit Private Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act was carrying on the business of Chit Fund since 1967, but on account of weak financial position it had to face Company Petition No. 4 ...
Kailash Chand Pathak Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-10-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR702
Vaidya, J. 1. The grievance voiced by the petitioners in these two writ petitions is two-fold viz. (i) 'Whether any delinquent employee of the Railway can be removed and/or dismissed from service without taking into consideration the self defence pleaded by him repudiating the allegations levelled against him in the Charge-sheet?' and (ii) Quite incidentally enough, the off-shoot of the said grievance is the second question - as to 'what indeed is the meaning of the word 'considered' appearing in sub-rule (9) of Rule 44 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959?' 2. Few relevant facts as far as they are necessary to understand and set at resolve the aforesaid two grievances, it may briefly be stated that two petitioners - namely, Kailash Chand Pathak and Prabhat Sinh, who were serving as Rakshaks in the Railway Protection Force were served with the charge-sheet dated 18-11-1981 alleging that on 13-5-1981 not only they absented from their respective duty at the gate of Sabarmati Engin...
Naranji Makanji Vs. Bhagwanji Makanji Patel and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-09-1993
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1444
A.N. Divecha, J.1. What should be the effect of inability on the part of a party approaching the Court for the equitable relief of specific performance to establish its case in toto at trial? Will inability to establish the case in toto at trial not amount to the falsity of the case? In such a case, should the Court grant to that party the relief of specific performance? These are the main questions arising in this appeal preferred before This Court by original defendant No. 2 in Regular Civil Suit No. 166 of 1975 questioning the correctness of the decision given by the learned District Judge of Valsad at Navsari on 31st January, 1981 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1976. Thereby the decision given by the learned Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) at Valsad on 30th January, 1978 in Regular Civil Suit No. 166 of 1975 came to be affirmed. It is needless to say that the trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale of one immovable property executed between the re...
Chandrakant N. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-09-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR761
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. This Court, in the case of Bai Amina v. State of Gujarat : (1981)GLR1186 , considered the nature and extent of the privilege available to the detaining authority, under Section 8(2) of the National Security Act not to disclose facts which it considers to be against the public interest to disclose. While this petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench, a contention was raised on behalf of the respondent-authorities that the law laid down by this Court in Bai Amina's case was not good law inasmuch as it is inconsistent with the decision of the Bombay High Court in Balkrishna Kashinath Khopkar v. The District Magistrate, Thana (1956) 58 BLR 614, which decision was a binding decision. The Division Bench was of the view that the point raised by the respondent-authorities is of great public importance and is 'required to be threshed out once and for all by a larger Bench'. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the point raised, the Division Bench raised t...
New Kamalkunj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-06-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR506
D.G. Karia, J.1. In both these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a short point of law that arises is whether the provisions of Section 65 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, 'the said Act') will be applicable to the lands which are no longer agricultural lands and are permitted to be used for non-agricultural purpose, in the following facts and circumstances.2. The lands of Survey Nos. 453/1, 454/1, 454/2 and 454/3, 455/4 and 455/3 and 456, situated at Chaodkheda, District Gandhioagar are the subject-matter of these petitions. It is not in dispute that the said lands belong to the petitioner, which is a co-operative housing society registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act. The member:, of the petitioner-Socifcty who are coming from the lower strata of the society have invested their savings for the purpose of having a residential premises. The former owners of the lands had obtained necessary exempt...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »