Gujarat Court August 1997 Judgments
John Mithalal Desai Vs. Dineshbhai K. Vora
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-29-1997
Reported in: (1997)3GLR279
H.R. Shelat, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31st December 1996, passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad, allowing respondent's (judgment creditor) application (Exh.53) and issuing possession warrant directing the appellant-third party to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of two rooms and open chowk land on the ground floor and whole of the first floor of the building called 'Vijay Villa' situated to the East of Maninagar Railway Crossing and near the Vandana Park Society, in Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as `the suit premises') owned by deceased-Dr. Patrick Motilal Kelly-the judgment debtor to the Court Commissioner; and rejecting the obstruction application (Exh.49) preferred by the appellant in Execution Petition No. 495 of 1994, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Rule 103 Order 21 r/w. Sec. 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. The chequered history may be stated so as to appreciate the rival contentions.2. Dr. Patrick Motilal K...
Tag this Judgment!PravIn Chandra Murarji Savla Vs. Meghji Murji Shah and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)1GLR778
S.D. Shah, J.1. The petitioner is the original plaintiff and respondent No. 1-A is the heir and legal representative of the original defendant. It appears that partnership business was carried on in the same name and style of 'Gandhidham Commercial Corporation' as per the terms and conditions stated in the partnership deed dated 1-4-1980 which is produced at Mark 45/1 and the deed of variance which was executed on the same day is marked as mark 45/2. In the deed of variance simply shares in the profits and loss in the partnerships business were varied while all other terms and conditions of partnership were maintained. Clause 19 of the partnership deed which is produced at Mark 45/1 reads as under : 'All disputes which shall arise between the parties hereto or between any of them whether during or after the determination of the partnership and whether in relation to the interpretation of these presents or to any act or commission of either party to the dispute or either of them or in r...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. Vs. Mahadev Dhanjibhai Khokhar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-26-1997
Reported in: (1998)2GLR1302
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This petition is directed by the petitioner against the Award of the Labour Court at Surendranagar dated 30th July 1993 in Ref. (L.C.S.) No. 57 of 1992 directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman in service on his original post with 50% back wages for the intervening period. 2. The respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute that the petitioner has terminated his services illegally from 6th December 1992. This dispute has been referred by the Government to the Labour Court for adjudication. In the reference, defence of the petitioner was that it has not terminated services of the workman but the workman himself has stopped to come to work. That defence of the petitioner was not accepted by the Labour Court and taking it to be a case of termination of services of the respondent in violation of Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act., 1947, the impugned Award has been passed. Hence this Special Civil Application. 3. The petitioner has passed an...
Tag this Judgment!Keshubhai Merubhai Maadam Vs. the Returning Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)2GLR548
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. In esse and in reality, the question of interpretation and applicability of provisions of Articles 80(4) and 84 of the Constitution of India and provisions of Sections 30, 33, 36, 39 and 80 to 84 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951) ('R.P.Act') has been placed in focus in this election petition under Section 80-A of the R.P.Act while challenging the election of the returned candidate ,respondent No.2 Dr. Yoginderkumar Alagh (now Union Minister) in the bye-election to the council of States held in November 1996. The petitioner has also questioned the order of the returning officer ,respondent No.1 dated 21.11.1996 whereby two nomination papers of the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that nomination papers had not been proposed by an elector of Gujarat Legislative Assembly Constituency as required under Section 39(2) of the R.P. Act. The contention of the petitioner is that the expression ''the representative of each State'' in the council o...
Tag this Judgment!Parekh Salonee Kishorbhai Vs. Gujarat Secondary Education Board
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-21-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Guj55; (1998)1GLR311
ORDERR.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner seeks a direction on the respondent to modify the petitioner's result and give her higher marks in the subjects of Biology and Mathematics Paper IT, for which the examination was held in March, 1997. According to the petitioner, she had secured 398 out of 450 marks in Science and Mathematics and since the petitioner was not satisfied with the marks in Biology and Mathematics Paper 11, she applied for rechecking of the marks as per the result sheet, she was getting 71 marks in Mathematics Paper II and 90 marks in Biology. The petitioner applied for personal verification of the answer hooks, which was done on 18th July, 1997 and during which it was found that one mark each in Mathematics Paper II and Physics was increased and the Board has issued a revised mark-sheet on 18-7-97. According to the petitioner, during the course of verification of the answer sheets, the moderator has reduced 5 marks in Biology and 2 marks in Mathematics Paper II. Ac...
Tag this Judgment!income Tax Officer Vs. Chunilal Jain.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)60TTJ(Ahd)448
ORDERM. PACHUAU, A.M. :This appeal is filed by the Revenue and the relevant assessment year involved is 1990-91. The appeal was marked as time barred by one day for which the AO has submitted condonation petition explaining the reason as to why the appeal could not be filed within the due date.2. Having heard the rival parties and considering the petition filed by the AO, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted.3. The first ground of appeal is against relief allowed by the first appellate authority amounting to Rs. 11,894 on account of electric charges and salary to chowkider and sweeper while computing income from house property.4. The assessee is an individual and the assessment order was passed under s. 143(3) of the Act. The assessee had income from house property, etc. While computing income from house property the assessee claimed expenses such as municipal tax, electric charges, salary to chowkidar and sweeper as well as miscellaneous expenses. The AO computed the incom...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanbhai Dahyabhai and ors. Vs. Dirasbhai Hasubhai Malek and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-19-1997
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2408
S.D. Shah, J.1. The present C.R.A. is filed by the original defendant Nos. 6 to 22 on being dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 2-4-1994 passed by the 4th Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Surat below Exh. 1 which was restoration Application No. 75 of 1993 which was filed under Order 9 Rule 4 of C.P. Code for setting aside the abatement of Spl. C.S. No. 270 of 1995 and for restoring the said suit on file and to decide the same thereafter in accordance with law.2. It appears that one Abbashbhai Hasubhai Malek, the respondent No. 1 in the present C.R.A. is the original plaintiff who filed the suit against opponent Nos. 2 to 5 and the present petitioners and one Bai Kani, W/o. Dahyabhai Bavjibhai and Shantilal Dahyabhai for specific performance of agreement, dated 26-5-1964 for the sale of land situated at Surat bearing Revenue S. No. 116 of village Majura admeasuring 3 acres 7 gunthas and which was reconstituted in Final Plot Nos. 10A and 10B admeasuring respectively 6,789 and 1,831 Sq. M...
Tag this Judgment!U.C. Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-15-1997
Reported in: (1998)3GLR2523
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The petitioner, a Deputy Engineer (Mechanical) at the relevant time working in the Department of Public Health of the Government of Gujarat, challenges by this Special Civil Application the final seniority list of the Deputy Engineers (Mechanical) published vide order dated 1st July. 1983. in which he has been placed junior to the private respondents.2. The facts of the case are that on 16th May, 1966, the petitioner was appointed as Supervisor (Mechanical) in Public Health Department, Ahmedabad. The appointment to the post of Deputy Engineer (Mechanical) in the department upto 1976, as per the petitioner's case, was not governed by any statutory recruitment rules framed by the Government under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Further the petitioner submitted that no separate non-statutory rules were framed by the Government for Deputy Engineer (Mechanical) in Public Health Wing in general. The petitioner submitted that the Government used to follow the patt...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Brown Boveri Ltd. Vs. Ashok Chavla, Collector of Baroda and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-15-1997
Reported in: (1998)1GLR336
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The petitioner by this Special Civil Application challenges the order dated 31st January, 1983, Annexure 'H' of the respondent No. 1 and Annexure 'I' dated 19th March, 1983 under which the petitioner was directed to pay the conversion tax of the land in dispute.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Brown Boveri House, 264/265 Dr. Annie Besant Road, Bombay-400 025, having its Head Office at Post Box No. 284, Baroda-390 011 and Works at Maneja, Baroda-390 013. The petitioner owns the land bearing Survey Nos. 182, 167, 181, 185, 208, 219, 221 and 234 admeasuring in all about 120 acres and 11 gunthas situated in the sim of Village Maneja, Taluka Baroda.3. The aforesaid lands were converted into non-agricultural use, i.e., for industrial purposes and the petitioner company has been paying non-agricultural assessment thereon as per the order of the respondent No. 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Amrutbhai Dhanjibhai Rathod and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-15-1997
Reported in: (1998)2GLR1284
S.K. Keshote, J.1. As all these Special Civil Applications are almost of the same facts as well as grounds and as the challenge and prayers made in these Special Civil Applications are also similar, the same are being disposed of by this common order. In these matters, leading arguments have been advanced by Shri S.K. Jhaveri, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 6822 of 1987 and 338 of 1990. Shri D.M. Thakkar, learned Counsel for petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 1872 of 1989 adopted the submissions made by learned Counsel Shri S.K. Jhaveri.2. The respondents have not filed any reply to the Special Civil Application, except in Special Civil Application No. 6822 of 1987. After filing of these Special Civil Applications, certain other events have taken place and as such, the facts have to be referred with reference to Special Civil Application Nos. 6822 of 1987 and 338 of 1990.3. The petitioners in these Special Civil Applications are employed...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »