Gujarat Court June 1995 Judgments
Kesarben Dhulaji Prajapati Vs. Amarsingh Baldevsingh Chauhan and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-30-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR71
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. The present revision has been filed by the petitioner who is the original obstructionist in execution proceedings and the appellant in the lower appellate Court. The first respondent herein, viz.. Amarsingh Baldevsingh Chauhan, was a decree-holder who died during the pendency of the appeal before the lower Court and came to be represented by Laxmansingh Baldevsingh Chauhan. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 herein were parties to the original suit, but their status so far as the present revision is concerned, is not significant.2. The relevant and pertinent facts leading to the present revision are not only necessary to be examined, in order to focus the attention thereon in the correct perspective, but also present an outstanding case where lengthy, protracted and deliberately extended litigation tends to defeat justice, and results in frustration to those who are law-abiding citizens and seek to redress their grievances through due process of law instead of resorting to ext...
Tag this Judgment!Manubhai Bhagabhai Patel Vs. Cheebabhai Rambhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-28-1995
Reported in: (1995)2GLR1369
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. In the present revision application the petitioner is the original plaintiff and appellant in the lower appellate Court, whereas the respondent herein is the original defendant and respondent in appeal.2. The plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 67 of 1990 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Navasari for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction, together with injunction application therein at Exh. 5.3. The plaintiffs case was that he was already the owner of block Nos. 33 and 35 of village Bharwadi. He thereupon purchased the adjoining and contiguous lands, viz., block Nos. 38, 39 and 40 from different owners-vendors by registered sale deeds, for the purpose of cultivation. So far as block No. 37 is concerned, the then owner Shri Kuverji Naranji Patel had executed an agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff, had handed over possession to the plaintiff, and had also executed a Kabja receipt in favour of the plaintiff. So far as block Nos. 38, 39...
Tag this Judgment!Empire Construction and Hotel Co. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of th ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-28-1995
Reported in: (1995)2GLR1293
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner Company seeks to challenge the order dated 19-6-1995 at 'Annexure A' to this petition passed by the Respondent No. 2, Municipal Commissioner of Ahmedabad by which unauthorised construction made as shown in the notice under Section 260(1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') was directed to be removed and prays for restraining the respondents from implementing or enforcing the impugned order.2. The petitioner constructed a residential hotel known as 'Shalin Hotel' in the city in the year 1991. The petitioner was given revised plan sanction on 20-4-1991 for the hotel building. As per the plan which was put up for the building there was a proposed construction of cellar of about 1300 sq. metres for making provision for parking 19 cars, 108 scooters and 122 cycles in the cellar. The petitioner had thus got the entire cellar sanctioned for parking purpose only. Over and above this, there w...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Sanand Textile Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Naranji Peraj Transp ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Guj107
ORDERS.D. Shah, J. 1. This Civil Revision Application filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure raises an interesting question of interpretation of Order 9, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure as to whether a Civil Court which passes an order dismissing the suit under Order 9, Rule 5(1) has power to set dismissal aside and to restore the suit to file on sufficient cause being shown. 2. The aforesaid question arises in the following facts situation. 3. The petitioner-original plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 4033 of 1988 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad to recover an amount of Rs. 14,116.42 ps. from the sole defendant (respondent), along with costs and interest on the ground that goods which were entrusted to the defendant, as carrier were damaged and, therefore; he was liable to make good losses caused to the plaintiff. 4. The suit was instituted on 26th July, 1988 and it appears that on payment of process fee, summons was issued to be served on the defendant. The...
Tag this Judgment!Amrat Ramabhai Vaghari Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR646
S.D. Dave, J.1. The petitioner Amrat Ramabhai Vaghari, came to be preventively detained as a 'bootlegger' within the meaning of the PASAA-1985, vide the orders dated July 29, 1994, pronounced by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, Respondent No. 1 herein. The said orders of detention are under challenge in the present petition.2. Learned Counsel Ms. Kachhavah who appears on behalf of the petitioner while placing reliance upon the Supreme Court decisions in case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad and Anr., : AIR1989SC491 and in case of Shri Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh v. M.M. Mehta, Commissioner of Police and Ors., : (1995)3SCC237 urges that, even if the allegation made against the petitioner-detenu are accepted on the face value, then also it cannot be said that the alleged activity on the part of the petitioner-detenu had a reach on public order situation. The Learned Counsel, therefore urges that this petition requires a complete recognition.Learne...
Tag this Judgment!Hunaida Jamnagarwala and anr. Vs. Appropriate Authority and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-26-1995
Reported in: (1995)127CTR(Guj)109; [1996]217ITR679(Guj)
C.K. Thakker, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to delete the name of respondent No. 2 Permission granted. Respondent No. 1 - appropriate authority, will now be the sole respondent. 2. This petition is filed for quashing and setting aside the order at annexure-A dated March 30, 1995, passed by the respondent-appropriate authority under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. It is the case of the petitioners that one Nizamuddin Balubhai Virani owned a flat situated at Kumar Corner Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Pune (hereinafter referred to as 'the property under consideration' and/or 'P.U.C.'). According to the petitioner, the property under consideration was 13 years old and constructed at the time when the F. S. I. available in respect of the said area was 6:1 resulting in a lot of congestion. The petitioners were in need of residential premises for their own use. It is the assertion of the petitioners that the talk of purc...
Tag this Judgment!Surya Kiran Association Vs. Appropriate Authority and Another.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-26-1995
Reported in: (1996)129CTR(Guj)323; [1996]218ITR29(Guj)
The judgment of the court was delivered byC. K. THAKKER J. - Rule. Mr. J. P. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, prays to delete Dr. Shashikant Karshandas Patel, respondent No. 2, as, according to him, the petitioner does not seek any relief against that respondent. Permission granted. Original respondent No. 1, appropriate authority, will now be treated as sole respondent. Mr. B. J. Shelat, instructed by R. P. Bhatt, appears and waives service of rule. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up today for final hearing.This petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the order annexure 'E', dated April 28, 1995, passed by the appropriate authority in exercise of the powers under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), of pre-emptive purchase of property and consequential order of even date at annexure E-1 vesting the property in the Government under section 269UE(2) of the Act being illega...
Tag this Judgment!H. K. Melinkeri Vs. Appropriate Authority and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-26-1995
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(Guj)46; [1996]218ITR348(Guj)
C. K. THAKKER, J. :Rule. Mr. B. J. Shelat instructed by M/s R. P. Bhatt, appears and waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 Appropriate Authority. Mr. V. K. Potadar, appears for respondent No. 2 transferor and waives service of rule on his behalf. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up today for final hearing.2. This petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside order Annexure 'A' dt. 28th April, 1995, passed under s. 269UD(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and consequential order of even date, Annexure 'K' under s. 269UE of the Act. A prayer is also made to direct respondent No. 1 to issue certificate under s. 269UL of the Act.3. It is the case of the petitioner that he entered into an agreement with respondent No. 2 on 17th Dec., 1994, by which he agreed to purchase a flat situated at 591, Sadashiv Path, Pune, admeasuring 243.03 sq. mts. for apparent cons...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Desai Babarbhai Maneklal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-23-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ613; (1996)1GLR157
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The judgment and the award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Mehsana, on 21.12.1981 in M.A.C. Petition No. 320 of 1979 is under challenge in this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ('the Act' for brief) at the instance of the insurance company.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal need not elaborately be set out. It may be sufficient to observe that the respondent No. 1 herein filed the claim petition for compensation in the sum of Rs. 9,999/- with respect to injuries suffered by his buffaloes on account of an accident caused by one truck bearing R.T.O. registration No. RJT 4445 ('the truck' for convenience) driven by respondent No. 3 herein and owned by respondent No. 2 herein at the relevant time. That claim petition was partly accepted and an amount of Rs. 3,700/- came to be awarded to respondent No. 1 herein by the Tribunal by its judgment and award passed on 21.12.1981 in the aforesaid claim petition. That has aggrieve...
Tag this Judgment!Praful Manilal Hargada and ors. Vs. Jamnagar Municipal Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-23-1995
Reported in: (1996)2GLR399
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioners who are doing the work of printing and dyeing cloth for sarees in Jamnagar seek a declaration that no Octroi is leviable on the cloth or sarees which were brought into the limits of Jamnagar city for the purpose of printing and dyeing by the petitioners. The petitioners had also challenged the validity of Rule 11(1)(e) of the Octroi Rules of the Corporation. However, at the inception of the hearing of this petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners did not press for that relief prayed for in paragraph 18(a) of the petition and also did not press for the prayer seeking a direction to include the petitioners' job goods in item No. 21 of Schedule 'D' of the Octroi Rules of the Corporation contained in paragraph 18(b) of the petition.2. The petitioners' case is that they are doing job-work of dyeing and printing plain cloth and plain sarees and are not doing business of buying or selling the said goods. According ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »