Court : Gujarat
Reported in : II(2004)DMC592; (2003)1GLR196
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. A short, but interesting question which has been put in focus, for our consideration and adjudication in this reference, under Section 17 of the Divorce Act, 1869 (the Act) by the District Court, Ahmedabad Rural at Mirzapur Court, arising out of Civil Suit No. 3 of 1997 instituted for dissolution of marriage under Section 10, on the ground of respondent-wife being guilty of adultery and passing of decree for dissolution of marriage is whether the factual profile and the evidence on record constitutes a legal launching pad for passing of decree for dissolution or not?2. In order to examine and satisfy our conscience, we have thought it expedient to have a close scrutiny of relevant and material factual matrix, giving rise to the reference under Section 17 of the Act, as it stood then before amendment. Short conspectus of facts, therefore, may be highlighted at this juncture.3. In this reference for confirmation of the decree for dissolution of marriage, arising out of a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)1GLR887
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. The State of Gujarat has filed this Special Civil Application, challenging the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Appeal No. TEN/AR-15 of 1994 dated 3rd January, 1995. By the impugned order, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the present respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and order passed by the Collector, Rajkot in Land Revision No. 5 of 1991 is quashed and set aside by the Tribunal and the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Rajkot in L.R.C. 37(2) Case No. 21-82-83 dated 15-7-1991 is restored. This petition, which is against the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, is essentially a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The proceedings in question arise under Section 37 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The grandfather of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein, one Aja Ramji, applied for occupancy certificate as he was cultivating certain land as a tenant under the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act. Ultimately, in the year 1954...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)4GLR3141
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the Government decision dated 22.12.1999 abolishing Vagadod taluka in Patan District and placing all the villages comprised in the said taluka into Patan taluka. By ad-interim order dated 28.12.1999 this Court had directed the respondents to maintain status quo regarding abolition of Vagadod talukas. In view of the above ad-interim relief, the Government had not issued any notification under section 7 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879.2. The first petition in Special Civil Application No. 10459/99 is the Sarpanch of the Vagadod Gram Panchayat. The other petitioners are residents of villages which are part of the Vagadod taluka. Prior to 15.10.1997 the villages in Vagadod taluka were part of Patan taluka and by Government notification dated 15.10.1997 erstwhile Mehsana District was bifurcated into Mehsana District and Patan District. Vagadod taluka was constituted as a new taluka ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)1GLR603
J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. Could it be said that the accused was afforded with an opportunity of effective and efficient hearing and paragon and promising, putative and palliative Legal Aid in a serious and major Criminal trial, wherein, minimum sentence, statutorily prescribed is 10 years and minimum penalty of fine is Rs. 1,00,000 It is the heart and main theme of this Conviction Appeal, on hand.2. In this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant-original-accused has assailed the legality and validity of thejudgment and sentence order recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge on 19th September, 1998 in N.D.P.S. Case No. 3 of 1998, whereby, the accused came to be convicted for having committed offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short N.D.P.S. Act) and atter hearing him on the quantum of sentence and considering the fact that wife of the accused who is suffering from deadly disease lik...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)1GLR38
B. C. Patel, J. 1. Messrs. Gujchem Distillers India Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 is one of the petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 8877 of 1989 and 2916 of 1991. Messrs. Ashok Organics Industries Limited is one of the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 6546 of 1991. In Special Civil Application No. 8877 of 1989, the relief which is claimed is as under :- '21. (A) to declare the impugned notification al Aimexure 'A' (Bombay Denatured Spirits (Guj. Amendment) Rules, 1988) to be illegal, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction, null, void and of no effect whatsoever from 25th October, 1989. They have also prayed for refund of vend fee collected, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 2. In Special Civil Application No. 2916 of 1991, the petitioners have challenged the Rules made in exercise of power conferred by clause (u) of sub-section (2) of Section 143 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 read with the proviso to sub-section (3)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2000)4GLR613
H.K. Rathod, J.1. In the present petition, the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (ITR) No. 118 of 1991 dated 4th February, 1999 is under challenge. In the said Award, 14 workmen are made permanent with effect from 1st January, 1995. The Industrial Tribunal has further directed that the period from 1st January, 1995 till the date of Award ie., 4th February, 1999 has to be treated as notional as these 14 workmen are entitled to relevant pay scale from the date of the Award.2. Mr. Jayant Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner-Junagadh Nagarpalika [hereinafter referred to as, `petitioner-Nagarpalika'] submitted that the financial condition of the petitioner-Nagarpalika is week and petitioner-Nagarpalika is unable to pay even the regular salary to its existing employees. He further submitted that such a direction of the Tribunal runs contrary to the set-up of Nagarpalika because such a set up is sanctioned by the Director of Municipality and if these fourteen ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1998Guj130; (1997)3GLR2191
ORDERS.D. Shah, J.1. The petitioners are the applicants, being the trustees of Sunni Muslim Wakf Committee (Board). The opponents are the heirs and legal representatives of original opponent-Hasan Abubakar Malbari, who has expired during the pendency of the proceeding in the Small Cause Court and present opponents, as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased opponent, are before this Court.2. The trustees of the aforesaid Wakf Committee instituted P.S.R.P. Application No. 25 of 1985 in the Small Causes Court, at Ahmedabad, under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, against Hasan Abubakar Malbari, who has, during the pendency of the proceeding before the Small Causes Court, expired. It appears that, the premises owned by the original applicants/petitioners bearing M.C. No. 991/2 situated in. the premises of Nawab Sujadkhan Masjid, opposite General Post Office, which comprised of a room, was given to the deceased-Hasan Abubakar as a bangi in the Masjid. It ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1997)3GLR1838
J.M. Panchal, J.1. This is a revisional application under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code by the defendants against the order passed by the learned Judge of City Civil Court setting aside an ex parte decree passed against them on their depositing in Court a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- within the time prescribed by the order. The petitioners who are original defendants have been sued by the respondent for price of goods supplied to the petitioners. The suit was filed as a Summary Suit under Order 37 C.P.C. read with Rule 142 of Ahmedabad City Civil Courts Rules, 1961 to recover a sum of Rs. 50,20,770-86 with interest and cost. On service of the summons of the suit, the petitioners entered an appearance through learned pleader Shri B. A Surit. The respondent thereafter, served on the petitioners a summons for judgment in prescribed form on April 11, 1991. Thereupon the matter was posted for hearing on May 2, 1991. It is the case of the petitioners that they had determined the appointment of l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1995]95CompCas663(Guj)
R. Balia, J. 1. The two petitions raise substantively identical questions and have been heard together at the request of counsel for the parties. Hence, I propose to deal with the same by a common order. First about facts : The facts and preliminary objections relating to Special Civil Application No. 2224 of 1996. 2. This petition has been filed in the circumstances to be stated hereinafter and raises the issue about the authority of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short, 'the SEBI') to order impounding and/or confiscation of the whole or a part of the consideration of a completed transaction, which in ordinary circumstances concerned the party to the transaction is entitled to receive and for whom it is an actionable claim, under the existing provisions of law under which the Securities and Exchange Board of India functions. This issue is similar to the one raised in Special Civil Application No. 5483 of 1996 - D. M. Investments v. Securities and Exchange Board of Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1996)2GLR714
S.D. Shah, J.1. The petitioner before this Court is the defendant of H.R.P. Suit No. 3888 of 1977 which is instituted in the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad by the respondent-plaintiff seeking his eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent as well as on the ground of acquisition of suitable residential accommodation by the tenant after coming into force of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act.2. The suit was filed by one Vasumatiben Maganlal Manani as plaintiff through her Power of Attorney-holder - Rajabhai Manani, and it appears that Vakalat Patra as well as the plaint of the suit were signed by the Power of Attorney-holder on behalf of Vasumatiben Manani.The defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement. Issues were, thereafter, framed by the trial Court and the evidence of the plaintiff was recorded. The plaintiff, thereafter, gave purshis of closure of evidence on 13-4-1982 and the oral evidence of the defendant was also recorded and the suit w...
Tag this Judgment!