Gujarat Court May 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.
John Hamiltion Christian Vs. Tapti Corporation and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-07-1997
Reported in: (1998)2GLR1270
S.M. Soni, J.1. As common questions of law and facts arise and the parties in all these applications are also the same, they are disposed of by this common judgment with the consent of the parties Advocates.2. All these Revision Applications are directed against the judgment and order dated 8th June, 1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Municipality), Surat in respect of Municipal Case Nos. 24 to 1563 & 1574 to 2576 of 1987 whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaints holding them as barred by period of limitation contemplated under Section 428 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 ('B.P.M.C. Act' for short) and Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Code' for short).3. The respondent Nos. 1 to 7 (original accused Nos. 1 to 8) were carrying on business in partnership in the name and style of the accused No. 1 as distributor of Narmada Cement Company. (Original accused No. 2 has died). The accused No. 1 is a firm o...
Narayandas Nathumal Hemrajani and ors. Vs. Taraben KalimuddIn Mulla Fa ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Guj12; (1998)1GLR148
ORDERR.R. Jain, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Shah for respondents Nos. 1 to 4 main contesting parties waives service of Rule.Aggrieved by the order passed by the joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Dahod below Exhibit 54 an application for appointment of Receiver under Section 94(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the C.P. Code-for brief) in Regular Civil Suit No. 158 of 1996, the applicants -- third parties have filed this revision application.2. To appreciate the controversy it would be worthwhile to advert to the relevant facts giving rise to this petition. Land bearing final plot No. 109 was of ownership of one Manharlal Hakumatsinh Thakore. Out of the said land, a parcel of land admeasuring 1532.40 square metres was sold by the original owner to the present respondents Nos. 1 to 4 -- original plaintiffs. Similarly, remaining land of final plot No. 109 admeasuring 3883.70 square metres was sold to the present petitioner--third parties. It is needless to say that, since a part of fin...
Jagruti Vs. S.G. Chaudhari (P.i.) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3251
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This is yet another case adding increase of frequency of custodial death noticed by this Court during the last three months. I have also noticed that some Police officers have shown extra enthusiasm and zeal in detecting the crime pertaining to recovery of money on a complaint filed by a private party for offence under Section 406, 420, 467, 471 and 114 of IPC or under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There appears to be a feeling among the complainants to egg the police to use force or violence in order to make recovery or settle civil disputes.2. The present petition has been filed by one Jagruti, a young widow aged 33 years, whose husband, Yogesh Patel admittedly died in police custody on 5-12-1996. It appears that on 14-2-1996, at police station, Gorva, a complaint was filed by one Harshadrai K. Patel of Alembic Chemical Works Ltd., Vadodara. It is stated that the deceased Yogesh Patel, resident of Hubli of Karnataka, was introduced as a pers...
Parasran Laluram Mawar Through Power of Attorney Vs. Indravadan Natwar ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-1997
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1718
M.S. Parikh, J. 1. Service of Rule waived by Mr. P.B. Majmudar, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. Heard. Both these revisions seek to challenge the judgment and order dated 2-4-1977 rendered by the learned Judges of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad in Appeal From Order No. 43 of 1997 and Appeal From Order No. 44 of 1997.3. The petitioner herein was the original tenant of the suit premises against whom and against the sub-tenantsunlawful assignees, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed H.R.P. Suit No. 1975 of 1977 for obtaining possession of the suit premises. Before that the landlord filed H.R.P. Suit No. 4805 of 1974 on 17-10-1974 for obtaining injunction. This was followed by H.R.P. Suit No. 5203 of 1974 filed on 5-11-1974, which was ultimately withdrawn contending that on 6-5-1977 aforesaid substantial suit for possession, viz., H.R.P. Suit No. 1975 of 1977 was filed. In the said suit the present petitioner being the 1 st defendant was served by s...
State of Gujarat Vs. Urban Land Tribunal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-1997
Reported in: (1998)1GLR56
D.G. Karia, J.1. The State of Gujarat has questioned the legality and validity of the order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal and Ex-Officio Secretary, Revenue Department, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, on 17th September 1993 in Appeal No. Ahmedabad - 68 of 1993. By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal under Section 33 of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') and thereby quashed the order of the Competent Authority dated 23rd March 1993. The Competent Authority, by the said order, had held that the second respondent held more land than the ceiling limit prescribed under the Act.2. The relevant facts giving rise to the present petition is stated as follows: The second respondent submitted a statement before the Competent Authority under the Act. The necessary notice under Section 8(1) of the Act was thereafter issued and the draft statement as required under Section 8(3) of the Act was served on the second respondent. By the order dated 17th Jul...
Maha Prabhu Apartment Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-1997
Reported in: (1998)1GLR236
R.R. Jain, J.1. Petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 6008 of 1996 has been allotted Final Plot Nos. 650, 594 and 688 of Town Planning Scheme No. 28 in lieu of original Survey Nos. 549A+B and 949B, etc. At present the dispute is confined to possession of Final Plot No. 650 only. Similarly, the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 4830 of 1985 has been allotted Final Plot No. 651 in T.P. Scheme No. 28 of New Wadaj in lieu of original Survey No. 548/2 and Plot No. 184. The preliminary scheme has been sanctioned somewhere in December 1980 yet the petitioners have not been given possession of their respective final plots though they have paid their respective contribution under Section 66 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short). It appears that lacing some impediment in handing over possession, the Town Planning Officer proposed variation but the same was rejected by the State Government and thus handing over of possession has been wi...
Vasantika R. Dalia Vs. Baroda Municipal Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-1997
Reported in: (1997)3GLR1879
M.R. Calla, J.1. Heard learned Counsel. 2. The petitioner was employed with Baroda Municipal Corporation on 7.7.1975 as Stenographer and her services were terminated in January/February, 1977 without following requirements of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Of course, in the meantime for a short period of three months by an order dated 14.10.1977 she had been given an employment as Typist. However, the petitioner had raised a dispute about her unlawful termination in January/February, 1977 from the post of Stenographer. This dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Baroda. On 28.3.1988 in Reference (L.C.A.) No. 14 of 19?0, the Labour Court, Baroda granted relief of reinstatement in favour of the petitioner without any backwages whatsoever. Against this award dated 28.3.1988, Baroda Municipal Corporation preferred Special Civil Application No. 3483 of 1988 contesting the relief of reinstatement as was granted by the Labour Court but this petition failed. While rejecting the...
H.B. Kapadia Education Trust and anr. Vs. Gujarat Secondary Education ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Guj189; (1997)3GLR2655
ORDERR. Balia, J.1. These three petitions raise an identical issue and are hereby decided by this common order. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 7907 of 1995 is an H.B. Kapadia Education Trust Established by H.B. Kapadia and R.H. Kapadia by Trust Deed dated 15-3-1956. Special Civil Application No. 7908 of 1995 is by Preyas Education Trust settled by Arvindbahi Mohanlal Shah by Trust Deed dated 8-2- 1960 and Special Civil Application No. 7909 of 1995 is by Kapadia Education Trust established by trust deed dated 5-3-1956 by H.B. Kapadia. All the three trusts applied to the State Government claiming benefit of being exempt from the provisions of Section 17(21), Sections 34, 35 and Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Section 36 in terms of Section 40A stating that the trusts are established and administered by the persons beloning to minority community of Jains. 2. In the first instance when the application dated 2-2-1994. 12-2-1994 were not decided in...
Pandya Bherulal Vardhaji Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-1997
Reported in: (1998)1GLR468
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The dispute in this Special Civil Application arises in respect to Survey No. 85 admeasuring 0.28 Gunthas of Ambaji, Taluka Danta, District Banaskantha. The respondent No. 2 herein was the owner and occupant of 1/3rd of the land of Survey No. 85. The other 1/3rd of the disputed land was of the ownership and occupancy of predecessor of respondent No. 3 and another 1/3rd of the land was of the ownership of respondent No. 4 herein. The petitioner has purchased the 1/3rd share of respondent No. 2 of the land of Survey No. 85. The said land is not an agricultural land and is situated within the Municipal limits of Ambaji. The other parts of the lands were purchased by Shri Shivram Lachchiram Joshi and Shri Mangulal Dalsukhlal Joshi. The petitioner purchased the land in dispute under a registered Sale Deed of the year 1972.2. The Assistant Collector, Palanpur, gave a notice to the petitioner and two other purchasers under Section 8 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›