Gujarat Court May 1996 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.
Bakunvarba Jakhubha Jadeja and ors. Vs. Chandubha Gumansing Zala and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Guj170; (1996)3GLR245
S.D. Shah, J.1. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs who moved an application at Exhibit 38 to amend the plaint as well as application for temporary injunction, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code or' Civil Procedure. Such application at Exhibit 38 was resisted, by the respondent defendant, inter alia, on the ground that it would change the entire nature of the Suit property and also on the ground that it would change substantially the cause of action and it would cause prejudice to the defence of the original defendants which they have successfully pleaded in their reply as well as in the written statement. 2. The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mundara (Kutch) vide order dated 26th February, 1996 rejected the application at Exhibit 18 whereby the application to amend the plaint is rejected. Oh the very day, the learned trial judge also proceeded to dismiss the application at Exhibit 5 for temporary injunction which order is under challenge by way of Misc. Civil Appeal befo...
Ajay Mahendrakumar Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)136CTR(Guj)215
B. C. PATEL, J. :Special Civil Applns. No. 10200/95 and 10201/95 are preferred against the order of rejection passed by the Settlement Commission under s. 245D(1) of the IT Act, 1961, whereas Special Civil Applns. Nos. 10202/95 and 10203/95 are preferred against order of rejection passed by the Settlement Commission under s. 22D(1) of the WT Act.2. Minors Manan and Alin have preferred these four petitions. These minors, their father Ajaybhai, their uncle Amitbhai and their mother Kokilaben, in all five, were the beneficiaries in equal share in a family trust known as Mayabhai Family Trust, which carried out business for the asst. yr. 1984-85. Sometime in the year 1989, business and residential premises of Ajaybhai and Amitbhai were raided. Subsequently, applications were preferred before the Settlement Commission. These two minors also preferred applications as aforesaid. It is contended that nothing in regard to the business of Mayabhai Family Trust was found out in the raid. However,...
Ramlal Motilal Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR493
B.C. Patel, J.1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the acquisition of lands bearing survey Nos. 90, 91, 92 and 93/1 of village Hansol (New Survey Nos. 4/1, 5, 6 and 7), now within limits of Ahmedabad City and further for directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the above lands and in the alternative for directing the respondents to pay compensation for the lands in question.2. Tenor of the petition indicates that the lands in question were not acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act yet the respondent No. 1 authority is trying to interfere with the possession of the lands. It is averred in the petition that no compensation has been paid to the petitioner. It is averred that for the first time, the officers of the respondent No. 2 authority approached the petitioner and tried to take the possession of the lands belonging to the petitioner and therefore, the petit...
Kishanchandra Chandansingh Rao Vs. Vasumatiben Maganlal Manani
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)2GLR714
S.D. Shah, J.1. The petitioner before this Court is the defendant of H.R.P. Suit No. 3888 of 1977 which is instituted in the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad by the respondent-plaintiff seeking his eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent as well as on the ground of acquisition of suitable residential accommodation by the tenant after coming into force of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act.2. The suit was filed by one Vasumatiben Maganlal Manani as plaintiff through her Power of Attorney-holder - Rajabhai Manani, and it appears that Vakalat Patra as well as the plaint of the suit were signed by the Power of Attorney-holder on behalf of Vasumatiben Manani.The defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement. Issues were, thereafter, framed by the trial Court and the evidence of the plaintiff was recorded. The plaintiff, thereafter, gave purshis of closure of evidence on 13-4-1982 and the oral evidence of the defendant was also recorded and the suit w...
(Mrs) Safia Mustafa Memon and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR380
S.D. Dave, J.1. Present orders shall govern the decision and disposal of these five petitions which present a common question. I feel that, I am concerned to a great extent, with the principles of Judicial Discipline, Judicial Comity and Judicial Concomitance.2. The provision of law which required to be kept in view would be, Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 ('TADA Act, 1987' for short), which runs thus:19. Appeal. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, an appeal shall lie as a matter of right from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Designated Court to the Supreme Court both on facts and on law.(2) Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any Court from any judgment, sentence or order including an interlocutory order of a Designated Court.(3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment, sentence or order appea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›