Gujarat Court April 1994 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.
Jayaben Jivrajbhai Vs. Karsanbhai K. Rathod and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-1994
Reported in: I(1995)ACC507; 1995ACJ184; (1994)2GLR463
K.G. Shah, J.1. Leave to add State of Gujarat as a party. Rule. Mr. S.T. Mehta, the learned A.G.P., waives service on behalf of the State which is the only vitally affected party in this revision petition. The Rule is finally heard and will stand disposed of by the following judgment:2. The petitioner filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jamnagar, an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the old Act') for claiming compensation for personal injury sustained by her as a result of an automobile accident. Pending that application, she filed an interim application, Exh. 10, under Section 92-A of the old Act claiming interim compensation on the ground of no fault liability. In that application, she claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 12,500/-. The learned District Judge, Jamnagar, who acted as the Claims Tribunal under the old Act directed the opponents to the application to deposit Rs. 7,500/- in the office of the Tribunal with 12 per ce...
Smt. Manjulaben Amrutlal and anr. Vs. the Chief Controlling Revenue Au ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1779
M.B. Shah, J.1. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, has referred the following questions for our decision as per the provisions of Section 54(1A) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the 'Stamp Act':(1) Whether the impugned instrument is a release without consideration falling under Clause (b) of Article 52 or a gift falling under Article 34 of Schedule I to the said Act?(2) If the nature of impugned instrument is decided as Gift deed, whether the Collector is empowered to make inquiry regarding the value of the property which is the subject-matter of the said Gift deed The aforesaid questions arise in the background of the fact that Gunvantrai Prabhudas Khadayata and Pradipkumar Prabhudas Khadayata executed a deed dated 17th September, 1977 which is termed as a release deed without taking any consideration on a Stamp Paper of Rs. 40/-relinquishing their rights in favour of their parents, viz., Shri Prabhudas Bhagwandas Khadayata and ...
Maneklal Mulchand Patel and ors. Vs. Competent Authority and Additiona ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR457
A.N. Divecha, J.1. Article 300A of the Constitution of India prohibits acquisition of any property of any person without any authority of law. Unfortunately, that salutary constitutional provision has come to be contravened in the instant case. The grievance of the petitioners in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that the share of their father in one parcel of land bearing Survey No. 972/2 (Part) situated at village Vastral (the disputed land for convenience) within the urban agglomeration of Ahmedabad has been declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the 'Act' for brief) without affording any opportunity of hearing to them or to their deceased predecessor-in-title.2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The disputed land in its entirety admeasures 12 acres. It was purchased by the deceased predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, named, Mulchandbhai Bapubhai Patel (the deceased for convenience) ...
Narendra Dharmshbhai Mapara Vs. the Chief Controlling Revenue Authorit ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-1994
Reported in: (1994)1GLR908
M.B. Shah, J.1. The common questions which are referred in these three References are (1) whether 'instrument' termed as agreement to sell is in the nature of an agreement liable to stamp duty of Rs. 10/- under Article 5(h) of Schedule I to Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as 'Stamp Act', and (2) whether it is a 'conveyance' for the total consideration mentioned in the document and is liable to stamp duty as provided under Article 27 (new Article 20) of Schedule I to the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958.Statement of the case:2. It is stated that for purchase of flats the instruments termed as agreements were executed between City Construction and Development Corporation, Ranjit Towers, Lai Bungalow Circle, Jamnagar, and different purchasers of the flats who were referred as buyers. The said agreements for the purchase of flats which were to be constructed in a building known as 'Ranjit Towers' situated at Jamnagar were registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Jamnagar, on variou...
Gujarat Kamdar Sahakari Mandal and ors. Vs. Ramkrishna Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-1994
Reported in: [1998]92CompCas692(Guj); (1995)2GLR1619
S.D. Shah, J.1. By this application, the Gujarat Kamdar Sahakari Mandal and two other individuals claiming to be the workers of Ahmedabad Shree Ramakrishna Mills Co. Ltd. (In liquidation) have taken out a judge's summons for directions to convene meetings of the members, creditors and the employees of the company in liquidation under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956. Affidavit in support of the summons is filed. 2. From the averments made in the affidavit in support of the summons it becomes clear that applicant No. 1, Gujarat Kamdar Sahakari Mandal Ltd., is a registered co-operative society under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, and applicants Nos. 2 and 3 are the workers of the company in liquidation. It is their case that as workmen they are entitled to receive their dues, i.e., retrenchment compensation, gratuity, etc., and such dues of applicants Nos. 2 and 3 and other class of workers would approximately work out to Rs. 6 crores and, therefore, they have st...
Patel Umedbhai Vithalbhai Vs. Pandit Chanchalben Jugalrai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-1994
Reported in: (1995)2GLR1471
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The common decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad ('the Tribunal' for convenience) on 7th April 1980 in Revision Application Nos. TEN. B.A. 888 and 902 both of 1979 is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thereby the Tribunal upset the order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal (No. 2) at Kalol ('the First Authority' for convenience) on 16th August 1977 in Tenancy Case No. Nardipur-75 of 1975 as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) at Mehsana (the Appellate Authority for convenience) on 30th June 1979 in Tenancy Appeal No. 220. By his aforesaid order, the First Authority accepted the application made by the present petitioner for restoration of possession of two parcels of land bearing survey Nos. 111 and 115 admeasuring 1 acre 5 gunthas and 2 acres 13 gunthas respectively situated at village Nardipur, taluka Kalol, district Mehsana (the dis...
Kanjibhai Harjibhai Rabari Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-1994
Reported in: (1995)2GLR1596
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The petitioner-detenu has challenged the order of detention dated 11-6-1993 passed against him by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedanac exercising power under PASA Act on his being satisfied that with a view to prevent the petitioner from carrying on his bootlegging activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order it is necessary to detain him. He was servedwith the order on the same day along with the grounds of detention.2. On perusal of the grounds of detention it appears that one case is filed against the petitioner wherein 2,568 foreign liquor bottles worth Rs. 1,47,175/ were seized. In addition to that 2,078 bottles of beer worth Rs. 86,340/- were also seized and a Maruti van worth Rs. 1,40,000/- was also seized. There were also other materials in the shape of statements of four witnesses with regard to the incident. Taking into consideration the aforesaid material and other circumstance the detaining authority passed the aforesaid order....
Arabian Express Line Ltd. of United Kingdom and ors. Vs. Union of Indi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-1994
Reported in: (1994)120CTR(Guj)377; [1995]212ITR31(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J. 1. It is the contention of the petitioners that the first petitioner-Arabian Express Line Limited of the United Kingdom - is a company incorporated in the United Kingdom (U. K.). The second petitioner is a director of the first petitioner-company and is a non-resident Indian. The company was incorporated on June 18, 1992, in the name of 'Cookquick Trading Limited'. The name of the company was changed from 'Cookquick Trading Limited' to 'Arabian Express Line Limited' with effect from July 10, 1992. Copies of the certificate of incorporation of the company named Cookquick Trading Company and the certificate of incorporation of change of name as Arabian Express Line Limited with effect from July 10, 1992, are produced on record of this petition. 2. In this petition, it is contended that the respondents be directed to give effect to article 9 of the covenant between the Government of India and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the ...
Jayantilal Hansraj Shah and ors. Vs. Hemkunverben Dolatrai Dave and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-1994
Reported in: (1996)3GLR522
J.M. Panchal, J.1. This Civil Revision Application which is instituted under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated December 10, 1993 passed by the learned District Judge, Jamnagar below Exh. 1 in Civil Misc. Application No. 2 of 1993 by which the application submitted by the petitioners as 'Third Party' seeking leave to file an appeal against consent decree dated November 18, 1993 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Jamnagar in Regular Civil Suit No. 740 of 1986, is rejected.2. There is a plot of land admeasuring about 4 Acres 22 Gunthas forming part of Revenue Surevey No. 1488 situate within the limits of Jamnagar City. The said land was originally owned and possessed by Late Maharaja Shri Indravijaysinhji Dilawarsinhji Jadeja and others. Out of the said land, land admeasuring about one Acre was donated to one Dolatram Mulshanker Dave by gift deed dated November 16, 1963. After the death of Shri Indravijaysinhji, the opponent Nos. 6 and 7...
Bai Bachiben Velabhai Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR761
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The order passed by the competent authority at Rajkot (respondent No. 2 herein) on 14th November 1983 in ULC Case No. 1459 as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad (the appellate authority for convenience) on 18th May 1987 in Appeal No. Rajkot-163 of 1983 is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order respondent No. 2 declared the holding of the original petitioner (the deceased for convenience) to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 5731.66 sq. mts. and declared the excess to be surplus for the purposes of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act for brief).2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The deceased was in occupation of certain properties within the urban agglomeration of Rajkot. The area thereof was in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed therefor under the Act. He, therefore, filled in the prescribed form un...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›