Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1995Guj133; (1995)2GLR1655
B.N. Kirpal, C.J. 1. The challenged these three matters is to the validity of the notification issued by the State of Gujarat, which had the effect of cancelling the earlier notification, under which a Wild Life Sanctuary had been established under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The aforesaid Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'The said Act') was enacted by the Parliament and it came into operation on 9th of September, 1972. The said Act was extended to the State of Gujarat on 1st of February, 1973. On 14th of April, 1981, a notification was issued by the State of Gujarat, whereby 765.79 sq. kilometers of land in Lakhpat Taluka of Kutch District was declared as a Wild Life Sanctuary under Section 18(1) of the said Act. The sanctuary is more commonly known as the 'Narayan Sarovar Sanctuary'. The declaration of the sanctuary was to be by a notification and Section 21 of the Act required the notification to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1995Guj130
ORDERD.G. Karia, J. 1. This Civil Revision Application is directed against the decision refusing to grant amendment in written statement of the petitioner, who is the original appellant-defendant.2. Relevant facts giving rise to the petition may be stated thus:--Respondent herein is the original plaintiff, who instituted a Regular Civil Suit No. 127/ 89 against thepetitioner herein for recovery of possession of the suit property on the ground that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the land lord-plaintiff. After the trial, the decree for possession was passed against the defendant-petitioner, by judgment and decree dated January 30, 1990.3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said eviction decree, preferred Civil Appeal No. 25/90 in the Court pf the District Judge, Kheda. The. petitioner submitted an application in the said appeal at Exh, 37, purporting to be under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to amend the written statement, w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1995)1GLR577
D.G. Karia, J.1. This Civil Revision Application is directed against the decision refusing to grant amendment in written statement of the petitioner, who is the original appellant-defendant.Relevant facts giving rise to the petition may be stated thus:2. Respondent herein is the original plaintiff, who instituted a Regular Civil Suit No. 127 of 1989 against the petitioner herein for recovery of possession of the suit property on the ground that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord-plaintiff. After the trial, the decree for possession was passed against the defendant-petitioner, by judgment and decree dated January, 30, 1990.3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said eviction decree, preferred Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1990 in the Court of the District Judge, Kheda. The petitioner submitted an application in the said appeal at Exh. 37, purporting to be under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking permission to amend the written statement, whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1993)1GLR820
K.G. Shah, J.1. The opponent filed Civil Suit No. 3247 of 1991 against the revision petitioner before the trial Court for a decree directing the revision petitioner to perform specifically his part of the oral agreement said to have been entered into between the parties on May 10, 1988, for transferring the business of the petitioner as a going concern, together with the goodwill and the tenancy rights of the petitioner, in respect of the suit property being Shed No. 1, and putting the opponent in actual and peaceful possession of the suit property, on the opponent tendering and depositing the balance consideration, and the amount of rent as may be payable by the opponent. According to the opponent-plaintiff as averred by it in its plaint, the petitioner-defendant had, on May 10, 1988, entered into an oral agreement with the opponent to transfer the business of the petitioner as a going concern together with the goodwill and the tenancy rights of the petitioner in respect of the suit p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1993)1GLR202
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned order dated 28th September, 1979 at Annexure 'I' to the petition by which the petitioner was serving as Octroi Clerk in Valod Gram Panchayat was ordered to be dismissed on the basis of the enquiry, which was held against him on the charges of misappropriation. In the alternative the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal - the Third respondent to decide the appeal of the petitioner on merits.2. It appears that the impugned order dated 28th September, 1979 was earlier challenged before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 3430 of 1979 and this Court holding that because of striking down of the Amendment Act by which the Gujarat Panchayat Acts was sought to be amended, the appeal did lie to the Tribunal and the petitioner was entitled to prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. This Court therefore (N. H. Bhatt, J.) gave a direction dated 13-2-1984 to the petitioner to prefer an ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1990)1GLR440
M.B. Shah, J.1. The State of Gujarat has filed this appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act against the judgment and order dated 8-8-1988 passed by Mr. M.M. Peshwani, Civil Judge (S.D.), narol in Special Civil Suit No. 21 of 1988. The Special Civil Suit is filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act on 21-1-1988.2. In the suit it is the contention of the plaintiff-respondent that the Executive Engineer, Bhavnagar Irrigation Project, invited tender for the work of construction of earthen dam, masonary dam (excluding spillway gates), head regulator and spillway bridge for Himirpur Irrigation Scheme. The tender of the plaintiff was for a sum of Rs. 1,14,27,00/- against the estimated cost of Rs. 1,19,64,626/- and it was accepted. The work order was issued to the plaintiff on 26-4-1982. As per the agreement plaintiff was required to complete the work within 24 months from the date of the work order, i.e. on or before 25-4-1984. It is the say of the plaintiff that the work was compl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1989Guj51; (1988)1GLR344
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. in all these Special Civil Applications, a common question as to the interpretation of S. 2(ee) in relation to S. 2(bb) of the Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958 arises. If the undertaking of the petitioners herein comes under the category of industrial undertaking, lesser duty is leviable on the consumption of electricity, while if they are service undertaking, higher electricity duty is leviable. Some of these Special Civil Applications have been filed directly after the demand was made for the payment of duty treating the undertaking as service undertaking. some of these special civil applications have been filed after the first authority h as found that these undertakings are service undertakings and some of the Special Civil Applications have been filed after the appellate authority has found that the undertakings are the service undertakings.2. The only argument advanced by the learned Counsel Mr. K. S. Nanavati, the learned Counsel Mr. S, 1. Nanavati a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1988Guj197; (1988)1GLR290
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J. 1. In all these Special Civil Applications common question which is raised is as to whether Mochis (i.e. the persons belonging to Mochi Community) of Gujarat except those residing in the District of Dangs and Umbergaon Taluka (which is now apart of Bulsar District) can properly be considered to be the members of Scheduled Caste and whether the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act. 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Act') in so far it deleted the entry 'In the district of Dangs and Umbergaon Taluka of Surat District - Mochi '- specified in Part IV Gujarat of the Scheduled to the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950 and in so far as it has included 'Mochi' caste as a whole in entry No. 4 of Part IV-Gujarat in the schedule substituted by the amendment Act is ultra vires. 2. Special Civil Application No. 3432 of 1985 is filed by Gujarat Dalit Civil and Constitutional Rights Pratipadan Samiti through its Convener Shri Dahy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1987Guj160; (1987)1GLR307
ORDER1. The present revision application is filed by the original judgment-debtor in Dark hast No. 45 of 1975 pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (JD) Borsad, against the order passed by the learned Joint Dist. Judge, Kheda at Nadiad on 21-2-1981 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 201/80. The said appeal was filed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD) Borsad on 27-10-1975 in Exh. 1 in Regular Dark hast No. 45/75. By the said order the learned Civil Judge ordered that the judgment debtor be detained in civil prison till he undertakes not to enter the suit land. The learned Civil Judge also ordered that warrant for the arrest of the Judgment Debtor be issued after the judgment-creditor deposits in the court the amount of subsistence allowance for a period of one month.2. The short question that is raised in this revision application is whether in execution of a decree for permanent injunction the Court has power to detain the judgment-debtor in civil prison for mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1986)53CTR(Guj)260; [1986]158ITR636(Guj)
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass. The assessee, an incorporated company, was at all material times, engaged in the manufacture and sale of sugar and certain chemicals. Some time in February, 1970, Messrs K.C.P. Limited, Madras, contracted to sell a second hand GHH Mill from out of its Vuyyuru Sugar Factory to the assessee company for an agreed price. Subsequently, the vendor committed a breach of the contract by defaulting to sell the machinery, etc., to the assessee company. There is no dispute regarding the validity of the contract or the factum of its breach. The breach of the contract entitled the assessee to the remedies arising ex contractu, e.g., specific performance of the contract or damages; in the present case, the first was ruled out because the subject-matter had been sold by the vendor to a third party. The assessee was, therefore, entitled to seek compensation for the breach of the contract from Messrs K.C.P. Limited. In about April, 1971,...
Tag this Judgment!