Gujarat Court March 1997 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.
Atulbhai Sartanbhai Desai Vs. Yamunaben Hariprasad Vaidya and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2333
M.S. Parikh, J.1. Rule. Service of Rule waived by Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned Advocate for the respondents in both the matters.2. By consent of the parties both these matters are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. This common judgment is rendered at the request of both the learned Advocates since the matters arise between the same parties and from the same proceeding.3. The petitioner alleging that he has been the tenant of the suit premises filed H.R.P. Suit No. 1246 of 1996 for obtaining the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from ousting him from the suit premises without due process of law. He preferred interim injunction application Ex. 5 in the said suit. The respondents filed their reply at Ex. 16 against the interim injunction application Ex. 5 and also moved application Ex. 20 inter-alia alleging that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that therefore, there was no jurisdiction with the trial Court to ...
Jethmal Bhagwandas Shah Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Guj)333
R. A. Mehta, Actg. C. J.At the request of the parties the matter is disposed of finally today.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants quashing of notice for settlement of sale proclamation dated 4-2-1997, informing the petitioner that 31-3-1997, has been fixed for proclamation of sale and setting of terms and conditions thereof. Even before that date, on 12-3-1997, proclamation for auction of the properties to recover the income-tax dues has been issued, which includes the present petitioner. As far as the present petitioner is concerned, his property could not have been included in the proclamation dated 12-3-1997, inasmuch as notice for settlement of sale proclamation dated 4-2-1997, has been issued to the petitioner.3. In that view of the matter, the proclamation dated 12-3-1997, so far as the petitioner's properties are concerned cannot be allowed to operate and the petitioner's properties cannot be allowed to be auctioned in pursuance of the notice dated 12-3- 1997. It is made...
Khushaldas Jethabhai and anr. Vs. Nanabhai Nathubhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2481
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The respondents are the legal heirs and representatives of the original plaintiffs-landlords and the petitioners are the original defendants-tenants. They are hereinafter referred to as the landlords and tenants for the sake of convenience and brevity.2. The tenants have questioned the legality and validity of the judgment and decree recorded in Regular Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1978. The original plaintiffs are the owners of property bearing Nondh No. 1272 of Ward No. 3 in the city of Surat; that the said property consists of 5 sheds and out of the said 5 sheds, 4 sheds were given on lease to the defendants-tenants. Earlier the landlords had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1038 of 1965 against the tenants wherein the standard rent of the demise premises came to be fixed at Rs. 125/- per month.3. The tenants were in arrears of rent from 1-2-1970. Therefore, notice was served on the tenants demanding arrears of rent of more than six months. Notice was not complied with. There...
Alfa Quartz Limited Vs. Cymex Time Limited
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-1997
Reported in: [2001]104CompCas71(Guj)
S.D. Dave, J.1. Present orders shall govern the disposal of these two company petitions which are under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, for amalgamation. The petitioning companies are the transferor-companies. The transferee-company is not before me. 2. In Company Petition No. 221 of 1996, the petitioner-company happens to be M/s. Alpha Quartz Limited, Ahmedabad, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having their registered office at Ahmedabad. The petitioner-company was incorporated on March 20, 1995, under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, in the name of M/s. Alpha Quartz Limited. The registered office of the petitioner-company is situated at Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380 009 in the State of Gujarat. The authorised capital of the petitioner-company is Rs. 1,00,00,000 (Rupees one crore only) divided into 10,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The issued subscribed and paid-up capital of the petitioner-company is Rs. 20,53,000 (Rupees twenty lakhs...
Oil and Natural Gas Commission and ors. Vs. Modern Construction and Co ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Guj46; (1997)3GLR1855
1. What is the correct interpretation and applicability of the provisions of Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) and Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Act) are the legal questions in focus in this batch of First Appeals.2. Which is the place of making of contract Whether the communication of acceptance of offer is complete at a place from where and when it is sent by telegram Whether part of cause of action for breach of contract arises at the place of transmission i.e. sending communication or place of receipt of it when made by a letter or telegram? These are the important questions raised for our consideration and adjudication in three First Appeals against three impugned judgments and decrees recorded in Special Civil Suits Nos. 60, 61 and 62 of 1996 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Mehsana, in favour of the plaintiff-contractor .3. The conspectus of relevant material facts may be stated at the outset : The appellants are the origina...
State of Gujarat Vs. Ramagauri Harkishandas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-1997
Reported in: (1997)2GLR929
R. Balia, J.1. This petition has been filed by State of Gujarat, challenging the order made by the Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal, Ahmedabad on 16-3-1992 allowing the appeal of the respondent by which the determination of surplus vacant land situated in the Urban Agglomeration of Rajkot vide order dated 27-5-1986 was set aside. The State Government also challenges the consequential final order made by the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act giving effect to the order of the Tribunal.2. In brief, the facts which led to this petition may be noticed.The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.L.C. Act') came into force with effect from 17-2-1976, and was made applicable to State of Gujarat since its inception. On 15-9-1976. Gokuldas Kalyanji filed a statement in respect of vacant land in Urban Agglomeration. Another statement in respect of the part of the very same land was filed by Prabhudas Gokuldas, son of Gokuldas Kalyanji also on...
K.V. Joseph Vs. State of Gujarat Overruled
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2896; (1997)2GLR38
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. This is quite an extraordinary case depicting the story of 'Diya or Toofan' where the 'burning torch of the 'Rule of Law' to quite some large extent has been caught surrounded by the stormy cyclonic winds of gross misconduct, indiscipline and abuse of power demonstrating the 'Rule of utter Lawlessness' by some top Government officials dangerously, blowing across the public administration violating, nay rooting out the law at their sweet will, whims and caprice suiting to their selfish exigencies and expendiencies helping out the accused releasing them from the clutches of law !! Now, taking into consideration the startling fact that in some serious cases wherein after the sanction was granted, the corruption cases against some influential public servants came to be withdrawn at the instance of the Home Department in the name of State, leaves no manner of doubt that to the said extent the torch of 'Rule of Law' stands extinguished in the State of Gujarat!! This is simp...
Jagdishbhai Dharamsi Thakore Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-1997
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1553
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This Special Criminal Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed, seeking direction to quash the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ahmedabad dated 22-10-1996 in Chapter Case No. 16 of 1996 and the order of the learned City Sessions Judge, Court No. 4 in Revision Application No. 272 of 1996 confirming the order of the S.D.M. -Ahmedabad.2. From the facts set out in the impugned order dated 22-10-1996 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ahmedabad, it appears that the respondent Nos. 4 to 7, viz., Rameshchandra Laxmandas Panchal, Ishwarlal Madhavlal Prajapati, Manoharsingh Bhawarsingh Shekhawat and Rameshabhai Shyamlal Sharma instituted Chapter Case No. 16 of 1996. According to them, they had purchased the property bearing survey No. 342/A situated at Saijpur Bogha by registered sale deed from Jagdishchandra Manprasad Master and they were holding and managing the said property. The said property was of the ownership ...
Sudha Bhatt Vs. Secretary, Social Welfare Deptt. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)3GLR2430
R.A. Mehta, Acting C.J.1. On the letter of Ms. Sudha Bhatt, suo-motu cognizance was taken.2. A girl child (later on named 'Noopur' and now 'Aayushi') was found abandoned within a few hours of the birth on 2nd September 1995 in the campus of S.S.G. General Hospital, Baroda. It was weak, ill-nourished and in precarious condition. The Hospital staff and the nurses took care of the child.3. On 18th September 1995, an application was moved by a couple Mr. & Mrs. Murthy, under Section 16 of the Juvenile Justice Act, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baroda. It was registered as Misc. (Kirkol) Application No. 2 of 1995. On 18th October 1995, the application was granted to give custody of the child to the couple for a period of one year. One of the conditions was that the applicants shall deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the name of the child. Mr. Murthy was an Accounts Officer in Essar Co. at Surat. There was satisfactory home study report, other certificates, recommendations and rep...
Dilipsinh Vakhatsinh Parmar Vs. Gumansinh Vaghela Hon'ble Speaker, Guj ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)3GLR2119
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. All these seven petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment at the instance of both the sides. The Learned Counsels for both the sides have referred to the papers filed in the main matter Special Civil Application No. 1837 of 1997 for the purpose of their arguments.2. These identical petitions seek to challenge the order passed by Hon'ble the Speaker of the Gujarat Legislative Assembly on 24th February 1997 which is at Annexure 'A' to the petition by which these petitioners were in response to their letter dated 20th February 1997 addressed to Hon'ble the Speaker informed by him that he did not find it proper at that stage to change the sitting arrangement under which these petitioners were allotted their seats with the Mahagujarat Janata Party in the House. A declaration is also sought that these petitioners continued to be the members of the Bharatiya Janata Party and that they were entitled to sit with the members of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »