Gujarat Court August 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.
State of Gujarat and anr. Vs. Aarcee Construction Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-04-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Guj125
Mehta, J. 1. In these appeals, the common question arise. Hence they are heard and decided together. The trial Court has passed a decree in terms of the award and allowed interest on the amounts of award at 11% from 1-7-1987 to 12-5-1990 and at the rate of 18% from 15-8-1991 till realisation. The particulars regarding different awards passed in different civil suits are as follows:--F.A. No.Civil Suit No.Amount awarded (Rs.)2616 of 1995251 of 19876,7?,060/-2615 of 1995249 of 19873,95,000/-2614 of 1995250 of 19874,74,762/-2524 of 1994252 of 19871,56,935/-2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the award has been made admittedly beyond the time limit to. make the award which expired on 31-3-1991 and the award came to be passed on 15-7-1991.3. By a Court order dated 11-8-1989, a retired Chief Engineer was appointed the arbitrator to decide the dispute and was further directed to submit his award within four months or within such time as may be extended by the Court. It ap...
Jeevan G. Tandel Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-04-1995
Reported in: (1996)3GLR713
J.M. Panchal, J.1. The order of detention dated April 5, 1993, which is passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Gujarat, Home Department, in exercise of powers conferred on him by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ('the Act' for short) against the petitioner with a view to preventing him from smuggling the goods, is subject-matter of challenge in the present petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Though the order of detention was passed on April 5, 1993, it could be executed on November 24, 1993. The competent authority issued Declaration No. 19 of 1993 under Section 9(1) of the Act, as it was satisfied that the detenu was likely to smuggle goods into Indian Customs Waters contiguous to the State of Gujarat. Before that, the State Government had forwarded report in respect of detention order to the Central Government on April 6, 1993 as required by Section 3(2...
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Nivrutt Karmachari Sangh and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-04-1995
Reported in: (1995)2GLR1856
M.R. Calla, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Nivrutt Karmachari Sangh and Mr. Madhusudan P. Dave as its Convener. The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Nivrutt Karmachari Sangh (here-in-after referred to as 'the petitioner-Sangh' for short) is an Association of such retired employees of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, who had retired prior to 1-1-1983 as holders of the Contributory Provident Fund ('CPF' for short). This petition was filed in the year 1988 on 12th July, 1988 seeking to challenge the denial of the benefit of Pension Scheme to the employees who had retired prior to 1-1-1983 as the Pension Scheme itself was introduced and made effective from 1-1-1983. At the time of filing of this petition, details of the members of the petitioner-Sangh had not been furnished but through Civil Application No. 623 of 1995 dated 6-4-1995, list of 86 retired employees had been sought to be placed on reco...
Sushilaben Rameschandra Doshi and ors. Vs. Competent Officer and Addl. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-03-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Guj117; (1995)2GLR1599
ORDERR.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioners who are the co-owners of the lands in question have challenged the orders at Annexure 'C' and 'E' to the petition passed by the Competent Authority and confirmed by the appellate Tribunal rejecting the application of the petitioners which was made under Section 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), for sanctioning the scheme on the ground that the application was made much beyond the time limit of 1139 days prescribed by Rule 11 of the Rules framed under the said Act. 2. The petitioners had earlier applied for exemption under Section 20 of the said Act which was granted on 25-2-1978 by the State Government, but was withdrawn on 5-6-1986. Thereafter, the petitioners made an application on 5th July, 1990 for sanction of a scheme for weaker section over the land in question under the provisions of Section 21 of the said Act. An application for condonation of delay was made as the dec...
Liladhar Harjivandas Soni Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-03-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR437
D.G. Karia, J.1. An important and interesting question of law as to the interpretation and application of the provisions of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arises in both these petitions. Both the petitions are, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In Special Criminal Application No. 1151 of 1995, Mr. K.P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waived the service of rule, whereas Mr. H.M. Prachchak, learned Advocate, waived service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.3. The aforesaid neat question of law arose as a result of the order dated June 15, 1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, Camp at Patan, below Exh. 31 in Sessions Case No. 95 of 1993, whereby the petitioners are ordered to be arraigned as the accused persons along with the accused already arraigned in the said Sessions Case, in the backdrop of the following facts and circumstances. Both the petitioners have questioned t...
Heirs of Vrajlal J. Ganatra and ors. Vs. Heirs of Parshottam S. Shah a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-02-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Guj147; (1996)2GLR361
Mehta, J.1. The appellant-plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 60 of 1981 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Junagadh praying for a declaration that he is the real owner of the suit land and that the defendant is merely a benamidar of the plaintiff and that the defendant does not have the right of ownership in the suit property. The trial court raised 14 issues. All of them were decided against the plaintiff. It was held that the defendant is the real owner and the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant was merely a benamidar and that the plaintiff was the real owner. The trial court also held that the suit was time barred. The trial court also held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he has made a legal and valid declaration at the relevant time before the income-tax authorities under Section 281-A of the Income-tax Act.2. The crucial questions arising in this appeal are:(i) Whether the suit transaction was benami and whether the plaintiff has be...
J.A. Goraswa and anr. Vs. D.i.G. of Police and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-02-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ994; (1995)2GLR1666
M.N. Mathur, J.1. This Misc. Civil Application (for contempt) has been filed on 16-10-1991 by the petitioners namely; (1) J. A. Goraswa and (2) R. B. Shukla against Director General and Inspector General of Police, Gujarat State and State of Gujarat.2. The say of the petitioners is that they were serving as Head Constables in the Police Force of the respondents and they had appeared for the written test and oral test for the purpose of promotion to post of Police Sub-Inspectors. They had passed the written test but failed in the oral test. Therefore, they approached this Court by way of filing Special Civil Applications which were decided by the Court (Coram: R.J. Shah, J.) by a common judgment dated 27-10-1989. This Court issued certain directions to the respondents to be carried out within a specified time. A copy of the judgment has been annexed with this Application and marked as Annexure 'A'. It is further casually stated by the petitioners that 'it seems against the aforesaid jud...
Manharlal Mohanlal Zaveri and ors. Vs. Indulal Vadilal Mehta
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-02-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR82
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Could the landlord file a suit for possession on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement of self-occupation under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act) against the tenant who is leased the premises till his life time, is the sole question requiring adjudication in this revision under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act.2. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs-landlords and the respondent is the original defendant-tenant. They are hereinafter addressed to as the plaintiffs and tenant for the sake of convenience and brevity. The landlords filed Regular Civil Suit No. 646 of 1975 against the tenant for possession contending that they require the demise premises reasonably and bonafide for self-occupation under Section 13(1)(g). The suit was contested by the tenant by filing written statement, inter alia, contending that the landlords do not require demise premises reasonably and bona fide f...
Nipurnaben and ors. Vs. Jesingbhai Maganji Thakore and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-01-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ845; (1996)1GLR737
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim of the appellant on account of death of Shailesh, the husband of appellant No. 1, father of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and son of appellant No. 4. According to the claimants, the deceased was thrown out of the bus due to abrupt turn taken while the bus was in speed and, therefore, the deceased was thrown out of the bus from the rear exit and it is said to be due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that the deceased had tried to get down from a moving bus and he had fallen on account of his own negligence and, therefore, the respondents were not liable for this unfortunate accident.2. As far as the oral evidence is concerned, there is nothing which can throw any light. The widow, Exh. 36, is not an eyewitness. The driver and the conductor, Exhs. 51 and 54, have stated that they have not seen as to how the deceased fell out. The driver learnt about t...
Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and anr. Vs. Smt. Madhu ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-01-1995
Reported in: (1995)2GLR1832
B.N. Kirpal, C.J.1. In this bunch of Letters Patent Appeals, the short question which arises for consideration is as to whether the reservation of land as notified in the development plan of 1983 for the Ahmedabad Municipal area lapses after the expiry of 10 years therefrom or whether after State Government had in 1987 issued a notification for the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'AUDA') the same gets extended to a further period of 10 years calculated from 1987.2. The facts are that under the provisions of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Act) the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation prepared a draft development plan for the City of Ahmedabad which was within the jurisdiction. This draft plan was notified on 15th January 1976. In the said draft plan the land which was owned by the respondents was shown to be reserved for some specific public purposes. Pursuant thereto, a notification was issued on 31st March 1976 u...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »