Gujarat Court July 2000 Judgments
Hardasmal G. Rochlani Vs. Head Mistress
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3027
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. These are two revisions filed under the provisions of section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act at the instance of the original landlords who had sued the tenants for a decree of eviction under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act.2. These two revisions can be conveniently dealt with together inasmuch as the landlords in both the matters are the same, and had filed two separate suits inasmuch as separate properties are involved. Moreover, the defendants (original tenants) in the two suits were also the same viz. Jetpur Taluka Panchayat.3. The landlords had filed both the suits on the same grounds viz. that the tenant was in arrears of rent for more than six months, that the tenant was guilty of unlawful subletting within the meaning of section 13(1)(e) of the Rent Act and that the tenant had erected a permanent structure on the leased premises without the permission of the landlord and was therefore liable to be evicted under section 13(1)(b) of the said Act.4. The trial c...
Tag this Judgment!Gautambhai Govindlal Bhatt Vs. Gujarat Secondary Education Board
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR211
B.C. Patel, J.1. This petition is placed before this Bench as the learned single Judge, taking up such matters, was unable to agree with the view taken by another learned single Judge.2. The petitioner's son, having a brilliant academic career, secured 80.86% marks in the new S.S.C. examination conducted by the Gujarat Secondary Education Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') in the year 1998. In the month of March, 2000, petitioner's son appeared for Science Stream examination, where his son secured 392 out of 450 marks in Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Biology. Being dissatisfied with the result declared by the Board, particularly with respect to Physics paper, an application for reassessment was made. On 7th June, 2000, the Board called upon the petitioner's son to remain present, where, in the presence of all the concerned persons, Officer of the Board found that there was an error in carrying forward for totalling. Petitioner's son was given 17 marks in question No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sonia Hurra Vs. Registrar, 3rd Special Land Acquisition Co-operative S ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1551
P.B. Majmudar, J. 1. One 'Action Group' has filed the present petition by way of Public Interest Litigation through its Convener Mr. Dinkar Mehta. By way of this public interest litigation, the petitioner has prayed various reliefs such as, directing the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to appoint an Administrator; to take charge of the respondent No. 4-Bank; to direct the Reserve Bank of India to take appropriate proceedings under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1934; to cancel the Board of Directors presently functioning of the respondent No. 4-Bank, and to appoint Administrator for the purpose of managing the affairs of the respondent No. 4-Co-operative Bank. 2. The petition was moved during vacation and the learned Vacation Judge has issued notice to the respondents. 3. The respondents have appeared in the matter and on behalf of respondents 4 to 7, respondent No, 7, who is the Manager of the respondent No. 4-Bank, has filed affidavit-in-reply, which is at page 131 of...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikhabhai A. Jadav and ors. Vs. Vaidya Gamanlal J.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR663
A.L. Dave, J.1. The petitioners, aggrieved by the order passed by the 18-1-1985 and in review application in that very case bearing Review Application No. TE.C.A. No. 22 of 1985 which was decided on 14-2-1986, have approached this Court with this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The fads leading to the present litigation can be narrated thus :2.1 Suo motu proceedings were initiated by the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. Nadiad under Section 32(1B) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 which were numbered as 8 of 1976 in respect of Survey No. 84/1/2 of Kanjri village, admeasuring 6 acres 29 Gunthas. The Mamlatdar and A.L.T., after considering the cases of rival sides, came to the conclusion that provisions of Section 32(1B) of the Tenancy Act would not be applicable to the petitioners' case. The reasonings adopted by the Mamlatdar and A.L.T., for arriving at this conclusion are that in earlier proceedings under Section 32G, it was held that the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Mohmedbhai Rasulbhai Malek and ors. Vs. Amirbhai Rahimbhai Malek
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-25-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Guj37; (2000)4GLR667
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. This judgment shall govern disposal of this batch of six Second Appeals which are filed against the common judgment and decree dated April 22, 1980 rendered in six Regular Civil Appeals being regular Civil Appeal Nos. 50 of 1979 to 55 of 1979 by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Vadodara and were admitted for hearing at the instance of the original plaintiffs on the following substantial questions, of law :'(1) Whether the certified copies of the judgments recognising the custom contained in documents M. 17/3 and 85/1 are inadmissible in evidence?(2) Whether the certified copy of a document dated 15-9-1909 contained in M. 17/1 is admissible in evidence and whether it establishes the custom in question?' (3) Whether Section 2 of the Shariat Act, 1937 abrogates one and all customs, including even succession, to agricultural land?(4) Whether the documents produced and witnesses examined prove the alleged custom by Which the daughters are excluded from inheritance a...
Tag this Judgment!Abad Dairy Vs. Manjibhai Dhanjibhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)3GLR1857; (2001)ILLJ1032Guj
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J.1. These Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred by Abad Dairy which is a unit of Gujarat Dairy Development Corporation Limited, and is an 'employer' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The employer feels aggrieved by a common oral judgment pronounced on 23-4-1996, 1-5-1996, 21-6-1996, 3-8-1996 and 5-8-1996 by learned single Judge (M. R, Calla, J.) (reported in 7997 (2) GLR 1204). The employer also feels aggrieved by the judgment dated 22-1-1998 passed by the learned single Judge (Rajesh Balia, J.) in some of the cognate matters, which are being decided by this common judgment.2. The common question involved in all these appeals is whether the Badli workmen employed in Abad Dairy, after it was taken over from the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation by the present employer i.e. Gujarat Dairy Development Corporation, are entitled to the relief of regularisation of their service and payment of consequential monetary benefits on their completion ...
Tag this Judgment!Rasiklal J. Shukla Decd. Through His Heirs Vs. Bharat V. Dave (Minor) ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-25-2000
Reported in: (2000)3GLR257
Acts/Rules/Orders: Bombay Rent Act - Sections 11(1), 11(3), 11(4), 12(3) and 29(2)Cases Referred: Gangaben Poonjabhai Amin v. Narayan Sonia and Anr., 15 GLR 310; Rupaben Kaththu Dhanji v. Babubhai Deojibhai, 24(1) GLR 263; Naniben Dayalbhai Morarbhai v. Vidhyaben Ambalal Mistry, 28(1) GLR 352; Harbanslal v. Prabhudas, AIR 1976 SC 2005Disposition: Application allowedJUDGEMENTY.B. Bhatt, J.1. This is a revision under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, at the instance of the original tenant (through his heirs), who was sued by the respondent-landlord for a decree of eviction under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act.2. The landlord sued for a decree of eviction on the ground of nuisance and also on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent for more than six months. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the suit for eviction on the ground of nuisance. However, the trial court found on the facts of the case that there was a dispute as to standard...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baban Kashinath Pande and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ615; AIR2000Guj318
D.C. Srivastava, J. 1. These two Appeals and Cross Objections are proposed to be disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Brief facts giving rise to these Appeals and Cross Objection are as under : Luxury Bus bearing Registration No. MNP 3260 left Ahmedabad on 19-12-1982 at about 8.00 p.m. It was carrying 35 passengers for Bombay. At the relevant time the bus was being run by M/s. Punjab Travels. The bus was actually, however, owned by M/s. Bagga Travels. Both these Travel Companies have their offices at Ahmedabad. In the night of 19-12-1982/20-12-1982 at about 2.00 O'clock the driver of the bus lost control between Valsad and Kila Pardi on National High-way No. 8. The bus fell in the ditch and it was turned turtle. It was facing up-side down. Several persons sustained injuries. 5 passengers died and 4 were left with different injuries. The legal representatives of the deceased 5 persons and 4 injured filed different claim petition claiming compensation. It was alleged that the accident oc...
Tag this Judgment!Kariel Kunnancheri Shridharan Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR832
B.C. Patel, J.1. The petitioner who was at the relevant time working as Police Sub-Inspector (Wireless) S.R.P. Gr. VIII, Nadiad has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for declaring orders Annexure I dated 7-4-1986, Annexure 'N' dated 26-1-1986, Annexure 'S' dated 22-2-1988 and Annexure Z/c dated 19-11-1990 as null and void and ineffective.2. Petitioner, after completing his training in Wireless Operators Course, was appointed as Wireless Operator in January 1961. He was transferred from Kutch to Rajkot and then to Junagadh. In May, 1978 the petitioner was transferred to Rajkot where he was allotted a rent free accommodation. It is stated in the petition by the petitioner that on 12th December, 1980 the petitioner was allotted the quarter and he started staying in the said quarter from 29-1-1981. The petitioner was transferred to Surendranagar in October, 1982. It is stated in paragrapli 4(4) that an order of eviction was passed against the petitioner on ...
Tag this Judgment!Sanmukhlal K. Darji Vs. District Panchayat, Surat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)1GLR772
A.L. Dave, J. 1. The appellant, being aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Assistant Judge, at Surat, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 70 of 1982, dated April 30, 1983, arising out of a judgment and decree passed by learned civil Judge (J.D.), at Vyara, in Regular Civil. Suit No. 1 of 1979, on December 31, 1981, has preferred this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellant is the owners/landlord of houses Nos. 261, 266, 267, 268, 269 and 270 of Vyara Nagar Panchayat and four rooms of the first floor were rented to the respondents for running a school on a monthly rent of Rs. 56/-. The defendant is the District Panchayat, which ran this school in the properties in issue. The appellant preferred a Regular civil suit against the respondent for eviction from the suit premises on the ground that the premises were required for personal and bona fide use/occupation. The suit was also f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »