Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2000)2GLR463
..... by the court and continued to deposit the monthly rent thereafter they could not be treated as defaulters in payment of rent even if the amendment made in sub-sec.. (3) of sec. 12 by the amendment act 18 of 1987 was ignored. we, however, find it difficult to agree with this submission. it is not denied that the arrears of ..... rent which were for a period of more than six months and in respect of which a notice of demand had been served on the tenants under sub-sec. (2) of sec 12 of the act ..... finding given by the learned appellate judge regarding rs.13/which is the standard rent. therefore, the tenant could have filed cross objections against that finding as after the amendment of the civil procedure code even cross objections can be filed against a particular finding.12. still however, in my view the defendant can attack the adverse part of the finding .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2006)2GLR1108
..... these petitions. the present petitions are clearly barred by the principles of res judicata. mr. oza has further submitted that the petitioners have even moved for an amendment in the said revision applications stating that the provisions of sections 482 & 397/401 of cr.p.c. are overlapping and, therefore, this court is ..... and accused persons are all permanent residents of bombay and doing their respective business at bombay. thus, the alleged offence punishable under section 138 of the act was committed at bombay and not within the jurisdiction of the court of learned jmfc, gandevi and hence, the learned magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain ..... summons issued by the learned judicial magistrate first class, gandevi in criminal cases nos. 185 to 190 of 2000 under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act. since common issues are involved and arguments are commonly advanced by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and the learned public prosecutor appearing for the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2008)2GLR1096
..... consisting of villages rodhra and rodhra chhapara (petapara). during the pendency of the petition an amendment to the petition has been carried out whereby, the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 20-10-2007 and 22-10-2007 whereby an administrator has been appointed for the petitioner-gram panchayat.2. the petitioner no. ..... not given to the proposal of bifurcation, has been passed. however, the respondent no. 1, exercising powers under section 7 of the act has issued notification dated 4-10-2007 whereby paroya group gram panchayat has been bifurcated and two gram panchayats namely, paroya gram panchayat (revenue village) and rodhra gram panchayat ( ..... that river gosambi was passing between villages paroya and rodhra, making travel and transportation to and fro difficult, for the people of the area. acting upon the above two resolutions, the taluka panchayat and the district panchayat, after making necessary inquiries, submitted the requisite proposal to the state government for .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)3GLR2415
..... detenu on 3-5-1979. the c.o.f.e.p.o.s.a. was placed in the ninth schedule at entry no. 104 by the constitution (39th amendment) act, 1975 and its amendments, by central act 13 of 1976 at sl. no. 129 and the s.a.f.e.m.a. at sl. no. 127 of the ninth schedule, both by the constitution ..... , in para 2 of the memo of the petition, it was stated by him that the detention will be separately challenged by the petitioner. in that petition, the constitution (40th amendment) act, 1976, the s.a.f.e.m.a. and the c.o.f.e.p.o.s.a. were challenged while challenging the notice dated 28-4-1979 issued under ..... s.a.f.e.m.a. the petitioner had challenged the order of his detention on various grounds in special civil application no. 2051 of 1979. however, the constitution 42nd amendment act of 1976 made it impossible for the detenu to challenge the orders of detention on any of the grounds permissible under part iii of the constitution. it is stated that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1997)2GLR1492
..... the society, shall be forwarded to the registrar.(2) if the registrar is satisfied that the amendment so forwarded is not contrary to this act or the rules, he may register the amendment:provided that no order refusing to register the amendment shall be passed except after giving the society an opportunity of being heard.(3) when the ..... order of the registrar. therefore, when the registrar has passed an order either allowing or rejecting the amendment of the bye-laws, the said order is appealable as provided by section 153 of the gujarat co-operative societies act. then section 153 makes a further provision of a revision before the state government. thus, when the ..... gujarat co-operative societies act, 1961 had laid down a specific provision for challenging or disputing the amendment of the bye-laws, a suit before the registrar's nominee will not be tenable because that will not amount to a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1996)2GLR433
..... no jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders inasmuch as the directors had not completed their term as per amended bylaw no. 28 including the note below the same. the condition precedent for exercise of power under section 74-d of the act was not satisfied as their term would expire on 31st march, 1996 and not prior thereto.(ii) ..... . the aforesaid judgment has no application to the facts of the present case as, admittedly on 27th june 1993 the general body of the petitioner-society itself had amended the bye-laws and provided for the transitional stage by inserting note below bye-law no. 28. the directors had obtained the mandate from the electorate to continue ..... for three co-operative years after the amendment and therefore, petitioner nos. 2 to 7 and other directors were entitled to continue to hold office till 31-3-1996.20. in view of the aforesaid discussion .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1960Guj14; (1960)GLR67
..... any enactment of this nature to state that the senate should have the liberty of making recommendations to the state government or the state legislature and suggest amendments in the act. such power would be implicit in any such enactment. it is also said that if any intrinsic support was necessary for this proposition, that is to ..... , if not in express words, certainly by necessary implication, that the senate of the upon a resolution requesting the state government and the state legislature to make suitable amendments in the act as may be found necessary from on s. 18, sub-sections (i), (ix) and (xiv). reliance is also placed on statute 31(8). the argument ..... desai was declined by the second respondent and he ruled that priority should be given to the resolution proposed by the requisitionists since it was a proposal recommending amendment in the act. there is a special provision in stature 31 relating to such priority and we shall advert to the same a little later. then, when the proposed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1972Guj153
..... to rebut the same by leading evidence. if the question that sufficient opportunity was not given to the appellants to raise their objections in the light of the amended act is allowed to be incorporated in the plaint at this stage, the defendants would have no opportunity to show that in fact they had invited objections from the ..... said acquisition became illegal and void. the acquisition was not complete when the ordinance no.3 of 1962 was promulgated on 20-7-1962 and the land acquisition amending act 31 of 1962 came in force on 12-9-1962. the said enactment did not save the said acquisition as the plaintiffs continued in occupation and the acquisition ..... by the averment made in paras 7 and 8 of the plaint, this amendment is superfluous. if the amendment is not covered, the question would arise whether the said amendment should be allowed at this stage. the question whether the state had followed the procedure under the amendment act is not merely a question of law but it is a question of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1983Guj202; (1983)2GLR1154
..... believable. the high court did not uphold the case of the plaintiff with regard to the arrangement of commission. however, in that case the defendant sought an amendment of the written statement and sought an issue at the appellate stage which reads as follows:'whether the defendants proved that the alleged sub-lease was created as per ..... the bombay high court decided the aforesaid case, the words 'subject to any contract to the contrary' were not there in section 15(1) of the bombay rent act. bat as stated hereinabove, the question does not arise before us and hence we do not propose to deal with this decision in details.16. realising the aforesaid difficulties ..... landlord and tenant in view of the fact that a head tenant is also a landlord as per the definition given in section 5(3) of the bombay rent act. therefore the question as to whether an ordinary civil court will have jurisdiction to entertain and decide such question will arise. what will definitely lead to complications. moreover .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)3GLR2331; (2003)4GLR950
..... was no authority assigned by the central government to the state government to make an order under section 3(1) of the act or amendment in such order with retrospective effect, and therefore, the impugned amendment order was having prospective effect only from 31-7-2002 being the date when was published. it was, therefore, held that the ..... kerosene wholesale dealers who were not the agents of the oil companies.7.2 it was then contended that the impugned amendment order, 2002 was ultra vires the provisions of sec. 3(1) of the essential commodities act, because, unless it was found that, but for such an order, the community will be deprived of the supplies ..... the central government and is clearly warranted by the provisions of sec. 3(1) of the essential commodities act. there is no valid ground for holding that the amendment order, 2002 is ultra vires sec. 3(1) of the said act, and therefore, the contention raised on that count on behalf of the appellants cannot be accepted.19. the .....
Tag this Judgment!