Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1979)1GLR114
S.H. Sheth, J.1. These two appeals arise out of Special Civil Suit No. 16 of 1967 decided by the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Baroda. The facts of the case briefly stated are as under.;2. The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants for recovery of possession of agricultural lands on the allegation that prior to 1st April 1957 he was the tenant in respect of those lands and had become their deemed purchaser under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. He further alleged that in 1965 he was dispossessed. In defence, it was contended that the plaintiff was not the tenant prior to 1st April 1957 and that, therefore, he had not become the deemed purchaser under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. It was next contended that he had surrendered the lands to the landlords on 1st April 1957 and had been working on the land since then as the landlord's servant. The learned trial Judge held that the plaintiff was the tenant prior to 1st April 1957 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1979)1GLR71
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The following three substantial questions of law as formulated by this Court arise in this Second Appeal:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the suit instituted by the respondent was liable to be dismissed, so far as the claim made by the amended plaint was concerned, for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure?(2) Whether the lower Appellate Court was right in law in holding that the order dated August 28, 1968, Ex. 77, made by and in the name of the President by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, was not shown to have been made on valid authority?(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lower Appellate Court was right in law in holding that the order, Ex. 77, was void being in violation of the rules of natural justice?2. In order to appreciate the issues raised in the above questions, it would be profitable to advert shortly to a few facts which have ultimately resulted in this s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1978Guj46
Mehta, Ag. C.J. 1. The City Civil Court's order returning the plaint for presenting to the proper Court having been confirmed in appeal by the learned single Judge , the plaintiff has come in this appeal. The plaintiff was carrying on business in a shop in question at Ahmedabad. The plaintiff had taken out two policies at Exs. 34 and 35 for Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 25,000 on November 28, 1968 from this insurer the Co-operative General Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad, whose head office was at , Hyderabad,. Now on nationalization of this insurance business under the Act, of 1972, this company has been a unit of United India Fire & General Insurance Company, which had its head office at Madras and the Branch Office is at Hyderabad. On Sept. 18, 1969, due to fire the plaintiff's shop having been burnt, the plaintiff lodged a claim of Rs. 65,000 with the original insurer on Sept. 30, 1969. The plaintiff's claim was rejected on Nov 22, 1969 on various grounds. The plaintiff gave a notice on M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1977)1GLR562; (1978)ILLJ215Guj
D.A. Desai, J.1. Petitioner Bhagwati Prasad Gordhandas Bhatt, has questioned the correctness of the order Annexure 'C' dated 9th January, 1973 so far as has posting in Civil Defence Organisation and his continuity on department as per Annexure 'D' dated 24th May, 1974 to Civil Defence Organisation; and in the alternative he has prayed for a direction directing the respondents to grant all allowances admissible to him as Police Inspector in the Police Force of the State of Gujarat. 2. Facts leading to this petition lie within a narrow compass. Petitioner was selected as sub-inspector of Police in July, 1962 and was sent to Police Training School at Junagadh for pre-service training and he passed the training examination in November, 1963. By an order dated 20th December, 1969 Annexure 'A'. Petitioner with several others were allotted to Rajkot Range by the second respondent and the petitioner was actually posted in Kutch District. He was appointed as temporary probationary sub-inspector...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1975]98ITR237(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. In this group of 24 special civil applications, same question relating to the constitutional validity of section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been urged on various grounds. It may be pointed out that section 2(14)(iii) was amended with effect from April 1, 1970, by Act 19 of 1970. Prior to this amendment by Act 19 of the 1970, agricultural land in India was not included in the words 'capital assets' as defined by section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. But, as a result of the amendment by Act 19 of 1970, land situated in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality (whether known as a municipality, municipal corporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town committee, or by any other name) or a cantonment board and which has a population of not less than ten thousand according to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published before the first day of the previous year, or in any area with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1973)14GLR921
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The insurance company in the present petition challenges the order of the authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act determining compensation amount of Rs. 9800/- as payable to respondent No. 1 the driver and making that amount payable both by respondent No. 2 the owner of the motor vehicle in question as well as by the petitioner insurance company. Mr. Shah rightly did not challenge the relevant findings of fact which could never be characterised as perverse. The driver's pay was Rs. 125/- per month and the accident which took place on October 26, 1965 was found to have arisen out of and in the course of his employment. Mr. Shah also did not challenge the compensation amount which was fixed on the basis of the workman's injury in question. The only point which Mr. Shah raised was that an insurance company could never be made liable to pay any compensation and the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act had no jurisdiction to pass such order against the i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1971)12GLR272
A.D. Desai, J.1. This revision application is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant Judge, Jamnagar holding that the petitioners, who are the heirs of deceased Darji Mohanlal Lavji, are not the tenants within the meaning of the word 'tenant' as defined in Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of the suit premises which was let for the purpose of business and directing them to vacate the suit premises.2. Shortly stated the facts are that the respondent is the owner of the suit premises. The suit premises was let to one Darji Mohanlal Lavji, who was using the premises for the purpose of his tailoring business. The respondent had terminated his tenancy by giving a notice in the year 1958. After termination of the tenancy, the respondent had filed a civil suit against Mohanlal Lavji for possession of the suit premises on the ground that he was in arrears of rent. In th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1971)12GLR378
Y.D. Desai, J.1. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit being City Civil Suit No. 184 of 1961 for a declaration that the freight rate charged by the Western India Railway in respect of the plaintiff's consignments of wood from Canada was unauthorised and wrongful and that the correct freight rate was Re. 0-12-1 and not the freight rate at Rs. 1-11-8 charged for carrying freight of maple wood. He, therefore, sued to recover Rs. 5349-3-0 by way of refund as being the excess amount of freight recovered from him.2. The appellant had received a consignment of blocks of Canadian wood for manufacture of Bobbins from Canada. Those pieces of wood were despatched in 5 wagons from the Bombay Port Trust to the Railway Station at Kankaria between 27th to 31st October, 1955 and of the five receipts prepared one was made out describing the wood as 'brich maple wood blocks' and in the receipts regarding the four other consignments the wood was described to be 'brich wood'. It was claimed that the freigh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1969)10GLR288
B.G. Thakor, J.1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the defendants against the decision and judgment of our learned brother, Bakshi, J. who was pleased to dismiss Second Appeal No. 1581 of 1960 which was also filed by the defendants. The suit out of which the present appeal arises was filed by the plaintiffs for dissolution of partnership and for taking accounts. One of the defences taken in the suit was that the subject matter of the suit was referred to arbitration and that the arbitrator had made an award and that therefore, the suit was not maintainable. The question raised in Second Appeal was whether it was open to the defendants to plead the existence of an award as a bar to the maintainability of a suit. His Lordship Bakshi, J. was pleased to hold that under the scheme of the Arbitration Act, an award or an arbitration award could be treated as effective only if a decree was obtained on the award in accordance with the arbitration. The view taken was that an award w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1970Guj108; (1970)0GLR208
Bhagwati, C.J.1. This petition challenges the validity of certain provisions of the Gold Control Rules 1963. On 26th October 1962, simultaneously with the Declaration of Emergency under Article 356 of the Constitution, the President promulgated the Defence of India Ordinance, 1962, pursuant to S. 3 of the Defence of India Ordinance, the Central Government made the Defence of India Rules 1962. The Defence of India Ordinance was subsequently repealed by the Defence of India Act, 1962 on 12th December 1962 but by virtue of the having provision, the Defence of India Rules, 1962, were continued in force. The Defence of India Act was passed, as its Preamble shows, to provide for special measures to ensure the public safety and interest, the defence of India and civil defence and for trial of certain offences and for matters connected therewith. Section 3, sub-section (1) read as follows:'3. (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazettee, make such rules as appear to...
Tag this Judgment!