Gujarat Court July 1997 Judgments
Daulatram Khitumal Udhrani Vs. Rajendrabhai Jayantilal Tailor and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-08-1997
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2507
S.D. Shah, J.1. The petitioner is the defendant-tenant against whom the respondent-landlord filed the suit for eviction being Reg. Civil Suit No. 129 of 1983 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) at Rajpipla, who decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiffs and in the Regular Civil Appeal No. 85 of 1986 preferred in the Court of Extra Assistant Judge, Broach he partially allowed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 30th July, 1992 by holding that the respondent-plaintiffs were entitled to recover possession of the suit premises under Section 13(1)(1) of Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act', and set partially aside the decree of the trial Court while reversing the judgment and order of the trial Court for decree for possession on the ground available under Sections 13(l)(b) and 13(l)(g) of the said Act. Shortly speaking the learned Extra Assistant Judge at Broach confirmed the decree for possession in favour of responden...
Tag this Judgment!Surat District Panchayat and anr. Vs. Dinubhaij. Gamit and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-07-1997
Reported in: II(1998)ACC533
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's CompensationAct,1923 arising out of the award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Surat, in Workmen's Compensation (Fatal) Application No. 8/98 decided on 2nd July, 1997 under which the claimants (respondents herein) were awarded Rs. 73,668/- towards compensation alongwith penalty at the rate of 50% as well as interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application. The facts of the case are that the deceased Jeevanbhai Bhikhabhai was initially appointed as daily wage clerk with effect from 21st October, 1983. Later on he was regularised with effect from 1st October, 1986. It is not in dispute that Jeevanbhai Bhikhabhai has died as a result of accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The claimants approached the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Under the impugned award, compensation and penalty as stated above has been awarded t...
Tag this Judgment!Montari Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-1997
Reported in: [1998]94CompCas356(Guj); 1998CriLJ10; (1998)1GLR35
R.R. Jain, J.1. Heard Mr. B. S. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. S. A. Pandya, learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 1 State and Mr. Ashok L. Shah, learned advocate, for respondent No. 2. 2. Since all these matters involve identical questions of law and as they are between the same parties represented by the same advocates, they are disposed of by this common order. 3. Petitioner No. 1 is a corporate body of which petitioner No. 2 is a director. Respondent No. 2 is also a company. As alleged, the petitioners borrowed some amount from respondent No. 2 and in repayment thereof gave some cheques of different amounts and dates drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi. On deposit, the said cheques were returned dishonoured, therefore, respondent No. 2 filed four different criminal complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('the Act' for short), in the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (court No. 9), Ahmedabad. The learned Mag...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhudas R. Patel and ors. Vs. Heirs of Patel Motibhai B.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-1997
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2471
S.D. Shah, J.1. Petitioners are the original defendants who are aggrieved by the order passed below Exh. 29 by the Second Joint District Judge, Baroda, dated 2nd of December, 1991 in Civil Appeal No. 188 of 1986.2. It appears that the original plaintiffs instituted the Regular Civil Suit No. 1511 of 1983 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division for declaration of their ownership right over the suit land bearing Survey No. 791 admeasuring 1 acre 12 gunthas, inter alia, contending that the plaintiffs have jointly purchased the said property by oral sale in the year 1964-65 and that thereafter a writing was executed on a stamp paper in the year 1968. It is their say that thereafter the said property was in their possession as owner absolutely and that they have jointly become the owner of the said property. In para 5 of the plaint, they claim that they reserve their right to amend the plaint as they have referred to pendency of certain R.T.O. proceedings in Para 3.3. By judgment and d...
Tag this Judgment!Geekay Exim (India) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD(Cri)297; [1998]94CompCas516(Guj); 1998CriLJ700; (1997)3GLR2660
R.R. Jain, J.1. Both these matters are between the same parties involving identical question of law and fact, therefore, are decided by this common judgment. The petitioners are the original accused in the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act', for short). The learned magistrate taking cognizance of the matter issued summons against the petitioners. Aggrieved by initiation of criminal proceedings and cognizance taken by the court, the petitioners have filed these petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Crl. P.C.' for brief), for quashing the proceedings and summons in exercise of inherent powers so as to meet the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the court. 2. The facts giving rise to these cases are briefly adverted to as hereunder : Respondent No. 2, Baccarose Perfumes and Beauty Products Ltd., is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (the 'Companies Act' fo...
Tag this Judgment!Nestle India Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-1997
Reported in: (1998)1GLR528
R.R. Jain, J.1. Respondent No. 1, Food Inspector, Food & Drugs Control Department, Valsad initiated criminal proceedings by filing Criminal Case No. 3022 of 1993 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Valsad, against the present petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for an offence under Section 16(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act ('the Act' for short). Present petitioners are original accused Nos. 5 and 6 and present respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are original accused Nos. 1 to 4 respectively. Relying upon the report of the Central Food Laboratory, Gaziabad, the petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 original accused had applied for discharge vide application dated 16-12-1995, Ex. 22. But, vide order dated 11-2-1997, Annexure 'FT, the application for discharge has been rejected. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the complaint and setting aside the impugned order.2. The only contenti...
Tag this Judgment!Archanaben @ Banuben Ajitkumar Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-01-1997
Reported in: I(1998)DMC620; (1998)1GLR127
N.J. Pandya, J.1. The matter has a chequered history. The present petitioner-wife, who was the original applicant for herself and her minor son, Hemang, in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Lakhtar, district Surendranagar, had earlier approached the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar, for getting maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This application was withdrawn in the year 1983 on account of a settlement between the parties. As the arrangement of settlement which depended upon the husband coming to take the wife alongwith two sureties acceptable to the wife's family did not materialise, the compromise could not be acted upon and that resulted into filing of Criminal Misc. Application No. 7 of 1988 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Lakhtar, by the wife for herself and for her son, Hemang who, by that time, had attained the age of 12 years. The husband on his part has filed...
Tag this Judgment!Bababhai Mangabhai Thakore Vs. Maniba Wd/O. Devising Harising
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-01-1997
Reported in: (1998)1GLR124
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This petition has arisen under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1948) and dispute pertains to the land bearing Survey Nos. 843/1, 844 and 621/1 situated at Moje Sathal, Tal. Dholka.2. The petitioners are the legal heirs and representatives of deceased Mangaji Dhulaji Thakore, who was the tenant as per their case, of these lands. The petitioners submitted an application to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal and Mamlatdar, Dholka, under Section 32G of the Act, 1948, for declaration that they have become the deemed purchasers of the said lands and to fix the purchase price. After notice to the respondents - land owners, the A.L.T. and Mamlatdar, Dholka, vide its order dated 21st January, 1979 decided the matter in favour of the petitioners and they have been declared to be deemed purchasers and fixed the purchase price of the said lands. The respondents preferred an appeal against the said order bef...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›