Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1984)1GLR349
P.S. Poti, C.J.1. A question of considerable interest and importance arises in this case. It is of interest because it is novel in that it does not appear to have arisen for adjudication by courts earlier. It is of importance because of the impact the decision may have in understanding the scope of the system of proportional representation by single transferable vote.2. The significance of an election is that it reflects the will of the electorate in the choice of its representatives. The simplest and perhaps the earliest form of election was that of simple majority vote in a single member constituency. That is the system in force for the elections to the State Assemblies and the Lok Sabha. This system, it has been said, cannot be said to represent fully the people's choice in that the will of the electors who had voted for the defeated candidate is not reflected in the result of such election. Sometimes it might even happen that the successful candidate may not have obtained the major...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1983Guj202; (1983)2GLR1154
Ravani, J. 1. The appellant-plaintiff, who lost in trial Court, does not dispute the finding of the trial Court that he has failed to establish relationship of licensor and licensee. However, it is contended that the trial Court has found that an interest in the premises is created and that the defendant in its written statement has admitted that its possession is unlawful and therefore decree for eviction should be passed in favour of the plaintiff. This contention is raised, although there is no such case in the pleadings of the plaintiff; no such issue is raised and that there is no such evidence also. On the contrary the plaintiff has positively asserted in his evidence that the defendant was not his tenant.2. After having a brief resume of the facts, the contentions raised by the appellant-plaintiff may be examined.3. The appellant-plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No. 2728 of 1970 in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, against the defendant-firm alleging that he himself was a tenant of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1983Guj34; (1983)1GLR292
ORDERB.K. Mehta, J.1. By order of May 4, 1982, this suit was stayed for reasons to be subsequently pronounced which are stated hereunder :On behalf of the original first and fourth defendant, the owners of vessel Hoegh Orchid, and their agents in India respectively, a notice of motion was taken out for a stay of the suit and further proceedings mainly on the ground that there was a foreign arbitration clause in the chartered party contract entered into between the plaintiffs on the one hand and the said defendants on the other. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to set out briefly a few facets which necessitated the filing of the present suit by the Union of India and the Food Corporation of India respectively as plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. On or about July 14, 1973 the Union of India, the first plaintiff herein, entered into a chartered party contract with Lief Hoegh and Co., Oslo, Norway who are the owners of the aforesaid vessel Hoegh Orchid wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1982CriLJ2255; (1982)1GLR61
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. This matter has been heard by us because the Division Bench consisting of P. D. Desai and S.B. Majmudar, JJ. by their order dt. Oct. 18, 1979 came to the conclusion that, prima facie, respondents in this miscellaneous criminal application were guilty for their acts or omissions of civil contempt as defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 inasmuch as there was a prima facie case that there was a wilful disobedience of the judgment, direction and writ of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 806 of 1975, There was also a prima facie case according to the Division Bench that the respondents were guilty of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act inasmuch as their conduct, acts or omissions throughout the proceedings were such as lowered or tended to lower the authority of this Court or interfered or tended to interfere with the administration of justice. Apart from the contempt of Court under the Contempt of Courts Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1981CriLJ232; (1980)2GLR926
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioner is a journalist and has been residing in the City of Ahmedabad. It appears that there were some quarrels in the area where the petitioner has been residing. Therefore, one Mr. Ramamurthy lodged information with the police against the petitioner at Naranpura Police Station Ahmedabad. The information disclosed that the petitioner had committed three offences punishable under the I. P. C, One was under Section 352, another was under Section 506(2), and the third was under Section 504 of the Code.. The petitioner was thereupon called to the Police Station and was taken in police custody. Within 24 hours he was produced before the Magistrate who enlarged him on bail. Thereafter the police filed against the petitioner charge-sheet in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, City of Ahmedabad.2. The petitioner thereupon filed this petition in which he prays for quashing the chargesheet filed against him by the police. In support of the prayer which he has made...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1980CENCUS585D; 1980(6)ELT397(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J.1. The petitioner, Gujarat State Fertilisers Company Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, challenges herein two orders; first, an order dated January 18, 1979 (Exhibit `E') passed by the Government of India in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and, second, an order dated September 6, 1979 (Exhibit `L') passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Bombay, in exercise of his appellate jurisdiction under section 35 of the Act. The question which arises herein depends for its determination upon the true construction of section 4, clause (a) read with the Explanation inasmuch as under the impugned orders the petitioner's claim for deduction of 'regional discount', which it claims to be a variety of trade discount, while determining the wholesale cash price of three of its products, has been rejected by the excise authorities in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1979)2GLR320
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. This Revision Application by the original defendant of Suit No. 17 of 1977 pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Surendranagar, raises an interesting question regarding the interpretation of Rule 3-A of Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was introduced on the statute book by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (No. 104 of 1976) and which reads as under:3A. Where a party himself wishes to appears as a witness, he shall so appear before any other witness on his behalf has been examined, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, permits him to appear as his own witness at a later stage.The facts in the context of which the aforesaid newly introduced Rule 3-A of Order 18 of the Code is required to be construed are as under.2. The opponent-plaintiff filed a Suit No. 17 of 1977 for possession of the premises in the occupation of the petitioner-defendant, inter alia, on the ground of arrears of rent, after serving ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1980Guj74; (1980)GLR201
Divan, C.J.1. This special civil application is under Art. 228 of the Constitution and the petitioners herein pray that this Court should call for the record and proceedings of Spl. Civil Suit No. 72 of 1978 from tke Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Valsad and dispose of the said suit or. in the alternative, that this Court should determine the issue as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India and the after return the said case to the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Valsad with a direction to dispose of the matter in the light of the judgment of this Court on the said issue, The petitioners herein are some of the defendants in the suit pending in the Cot-ut of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Valsad. Respondents Nos. 6 to 11 are also defendants in the said suit. Respondents Nos. I to 7 in this special civil application are the plaintiffs in the said. suit. The facts leading to the present special civil application are as follows: On August 23, 1971. one ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1979)1GLR525
B.K. Mehta, J.1. A short but interesting question arises in this revision application as to what are the correct principles which govern the grant or refusal of leave to defend summary suits in context of the amended provisions of Order 37 Rules 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. The question arises in the following circumstances:The plaintiff-Bank, which is opponent No. 1 before me, filed Summary Suit No. 2672 of 1977 on August 16, 1977 against the petitioners and respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 herein for recovery of Rs. 5,83,028-42 Ps. being the amount due and payable at the foot of the various accounts, viz. Demand Cash Credit (Factory Type); Demand Cash Credit (Machinery Type); Medium Term Loan A/c against machinery and Demand Cash Credit against book debts, which accounts were opened in course of certain facilities provided by the plaintiff-Bank to petitioner No. 2, which was a firm at the relevant time of the suit transactions. The plaintiff-Bank has also prayed for interim injunct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1979)2GLR140
ORDER, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Levy Oredr' for the sake of brevity). Thereafter notice of procurement was issude under the Levy Order to the petitioners and others. Petitioners, therefore, filed this petition on 30th Januarty 1975 in a representative capacity under Order J, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code. On 9th December 1976, an application for amendment of the petition was made and it was granted. On 5th April 1977, another application for amendment to the petition was made and was granted. It is that Levy Order which is challenged by the petitioners on several grounds.2. Mr. I.M. Nanavaty who appears on behalf of the petitioners has raised the following contentions:(i) Levy Order is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 3(3A) and Section 3(3B) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.(ii) Paddy is a foodstuff as distinguished from foodgrains. Therefore, Section 3(3B) does not apply to paddy.(iii) Assuming that paddy is a foodgrain and assuming further that...
Tag this Judgment!