Gujarat Court July 1995 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.
Khemchand Kalidas Mehta Vs. Kothari Gubharuchand Motilal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-11-1995
Reported in: (1996)2GLR404
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The petitioner who is the original defendant-tenant has impugned the ejectment decree passed against him by filing this revision under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act.The respondent is the original plaintiff-landlord who is the owner of one residential house bearing No. E/6/155 situated in Galeseth Street at Radhanpur. The plaintiff was the owner of half portion of the said house and later on he purchased the other half from one Mr. K.H. Shah by registered sale deed on 13-2-1975 with sitting tenant, i.e., petitioner. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are hereinafter referred to as the landlord and tenant.2. The demise property consisted of a room wherein defendant is the tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 9/-. After the purchase of the property, the landlord served the defendant-tenant with a notice calling upon him to hand over the possession of the demise property. The claim of the possession was disputed by the tenant by giving reply. Thereafter...
Santokbai Narbheram Barot Vs. Ramdas Dwarkadas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-10-1995
Reported in: (1996)2GLR80
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The petitioner is the original defendant-tenant who has questioned the legality and validity of eviction decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 7 of 1978 on 29-4-1981 and confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 95 of 1981 by resorting to the provisions of Section 29(2) of Bombay Rents, Hotal and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act). 2. The respondent is the original-plaintiff who is the owner of the suit property situated in Khambhalia and the petitioner original-defendant is the tenant in respect of the said property at a monthly rent of Rs. 3/- as per the English Calendar month. The parties are hereinafter referred to as landlord and tenant for the sake of convenience and brevity.3. The landlord served the defendant-tenant with a notice on the ground of non-payment of rent and non-user of the demise premises. The notice was not replied nor complied. Therefore, the suit was filed for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent under Section 12(3)(a...
Yakub Ismail Chhipa Vs. the District Magistrate
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-07-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR4
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. 'Subjective Satisfaction'!! What it is? What indeed is its scope and purport, and accordingly therefore, the true meaning of it, is the subject-matter of discussion in this petition, so as to understand its implication in proper perspective, vis-a-vis the aspect of Non-application of mind, more often urged and also occasionally allowed declaring ab initio invalid the impugned order of detention!!2. Yakub Ismail Chhipa, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has moved this Court challenging the impugned order of detention dated 21-10-1994, passed against him Under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985, by the District Magistrate, Bharuch, inter alia praying for quashing and setting aside the same and to set him at liberty forthwith. He has been detained as a 'bootlegger', as defined in Section 2(b) of the PASA, on several allegations as stated in detail in the grounds of detention.2A. Mr. H.R. Prajapati, th...
N.S. Patel Vs. Executive Engineer, Panam Irrigation Division and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-07-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR127
M.R. Calla, J.1. This group of 22 Special Civil Application by D.B. is directed against the suspension of 22 employees who were working in Narmada and Water Resources Department in the Panam Irrigation Project. The petitioners herein hold the posts of Assistant Engineer, Additional Assistant Engineer, Overseer and Deputy Executive Engineer. All these petitioners have been placed under suspension by the orders passed on 30-6-1995 issued under the signatures of the Under Secretary to the Government in Narmada and Water Resources Department. The suspension orders had been placed on record while filing the Special Civil Applications on 1-7-1995 on the ground that the orders had not been served upon the petitioners but it has been disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, and according to the respondent they had been served on 30-6-1995 itself by pasting/affixing the suspension orders at the residence of the respective petitioners. The Learned Counsel of the petitioners was, the...
Suresh Govindji Kelkar and ors. Vs. Ratilal Dahyabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-07-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR375
R.A. Mehta, J.1. This revision application by the tenant against the concurrent findings of the two lower Courts arises from an order under Section 13A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 which reads as follows:13 A. Where the landlord proposes to make any improvement in, or construct any additional structure on, any building which (or part of which) has been let to a tenant, and the tenant refuses to allow the landlord to make the improvement or construct such additional structure, if the Court, on an application made to it in this behalf by the landlord, is satisfied that such work will not cause undue hardship to the tenant, the Court may permit the landlord to do such work, and may make such other order as it thinks fit in the circumstances of the case.This Section was inserted by Gujarat Act No. 57 of 1963.2. The trial Court has passed a decree directing as follows:The plaintiff is permitted to do the construction of additional structure on the ter...
Chandrakant M. Deshpande Vs. Vasantrao B. Toke and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-07-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR248
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Allotment of quarter to the employee of the State or the Central Government in connection with his employment with the employer could be said or not as acquisition or allotment of the suitable alternative accommodation under Section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act) is the main theme of this Revision Petition. Thus, short and interesting question which has figured in this revision is with regard to the interpretation and applicability of the provisions of Section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rent Act in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.2. The petitioner is the original defendant-tenant and the respondents are the original plaintiffs landlords. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are hereinafter referred to as the landlords, and tenant. The defendant is the tenant in respect of one room in the building bearing Municipal Census No. 17-136 situated in the city of Baroda, at a mont...
Smt. Bhartiben BipIn Panchal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-05-1995
Reported in: (1996)2GLR108
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. Smt. Bhartiben, wife of the detenue - Dr. Bipin Shantilal Panchal, alongwith three other detenus by these four separate writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have moved this Court, challenging the impugned order of detention dated 22-8-1994, 8-9-1994, 25-8-1994 and 22-8-1994 respectively passed against them, by Mr. A.K. Shrivastava, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, New Delhi, respondent No. 2 herein, exercising powers under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, inter alia praying for quashing and setting aside the same and, to set them at liberty forthwith.2. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kamleshkumar Ishvardas Patel v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1995(3) JT 639, the learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners submitted that in the instant cases since in the grounds of detention, detenus have not been appr...
The Surat Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajeshwariben Jamietram
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Guj128; (1996)2GLR397
ORDERJ.N. Bhatt, J.1. The opponent is the original plaintiff who instituted regular Civil Suit No. 125/86 for declaration against the petitioner original defendant Company. The plaintiff sought declaration that the defendant company has no right, title or interest to erect electric sub-station and instal transformer at Swayamprakash Park over the land bearing survey No. 1119/1, 1129 and 1130. According to the case of the plaintiff, there was no contract between the defendant and the plaintiff about the erection of electric substation and that the erection of the said substation exactly below the plaintiff's flat would obstruct the passage and parking of vehicles and will be hazardous.2. The suit was resisted by the defendant company by, inter alia, contending that M/s. Keshav and Company were the organisers of the Swayamprakash Park society and they have provided the space for electric substation with a view to enable the company to supply power to the flat holders and others in the ne...
Trustees of E.M. High School Trust and ors. Vs. Kulumben Gulamnabi Mom ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR521
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. A mere demand of taxes relating to the super-structure built by the tenant on a rented land and failing to pay such taxes to the local authority and the State Government paid by the landlord and thereafter claiming the same alongwith arrears of rent in a notice would be sufficient to take out the case out of provisions of Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (the Rent Act' for short), is the main issue in focus in this revision.2. The petitioners are the purchasers of the demised premises from the original plaintiffs-landlords and the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the heirs of the original defendant-tenant and respondent No. 4 was the partner of partnership firm, respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 6 is original defendant No. 6. Thus, all the respondents are the original defendants. The parties are hereinafter referred to as landlord-trust and the defendant-tenants for sake of convenience and brevity.3. The landlord-trust h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›