Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-16-1979
Reported in : 1981ACJ207; AIR1980Guj172; (1979)2GLR371
Nanavatl, J. 1. The question of law, and of some importance, which arises in these revision applications for our consideration is whether a consignor who is not an owner of a part of the goods consigned by him (whom we shall call 'consignor-non-owner' for the sake of convenience) along with his own goods and under the same parcel way bill, is competent to file a suit for recovery of compensation from the Railway administration for loss, destruction, deterioration or damage caused to the goods as a result of delay or detention on the part of the Railway administration in their carriage? This question being common ~to all these revision applications, they are all disposed of together by this common judgment.2. The acts in all these cases are similar; and, therefore, we will refer to the representative facts of Civil Revision Application No. 272 of 1977 wily. It arises out of Regular Civil Suit No. 3963 of 1970 filed in the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad, by M/s.Tolaram, Hariram and K. A....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-06-1979
Reported in : (1979)2GLR575
ORDERAs per Ex. 55, this Darkhast is withdrawn Cost on D.H. 29-7-1965.Sd/-C.J. (S.D.)The interpretation of the aforesaid order is to decide the fate of the present appeal.7. After having obtained the permission from the Collector Baroda on 3-1-1970, at stated above, the appellant re-presented the present Darkhast against the same judgment debtors for the same reliefs as he originally prayed in Darkhast No. 21/56. The said Darkhast was filed on 28-1-1971 in the Court of the Civil Judge (S.D.) Baroda and it was numbered as Darkhast No. 4/71. In all respect, the execution application i.e. Darkhast No. 4/71 was identical with the earlier Darkhast No. 21/56, save and except the tact that in the second execution application the latter development which took place pursuant to the High Court order in F.A. No. 100/60 and the further development leading to the permission of the Collector which was granted on 3-1-1970 were mentioned, but the reliefs prayed for in Darkhast No. 4/71 were completely...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-15-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Guj89; (1980)1GLR103
B.K. Mehta, J. 1. The following two questions have been referred to us for our opinion:1. Whether the decision of the Division Bench in Nanumal Rajumal v. Lilaram Vensimal : (1977)18GLR858 is a, good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Damadilal v. Parashram. (1976) 1 SCC 85V 2. If a statutory tenant has also an estate and is heritable and transferable, would it require a notice for determination of that estate as prescribed under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act? 2. The above two questions arise in the following circumstances:The deceased father of the plaintiff land lords, who are the petitioners before us, filed H. R. P. suit No. 5218 of 1965 out of which Civil Revision Application No. 348 of 1975 arises, in the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad against the defendant-tenants who are the respondents herein, for possession of the residential premises bearing municipal census Nos. 2926 and 2923/1 situate in Zaveriwad Kalupur, Ahmedabad, which were taken on leas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-23-1979
Reported in : (1980)21GLR466
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioner company, by the present. Pe on cTaaenges an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat, in a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by which the Tribunal has declared that the lay-offs of about 215 workers effected by the petitioner company, vide Notices, Ex. 8/1 dated 18-11-74, Ex. 8/2 dated 4-12-1974, and Ex. 8/3 dated 27-12-1974 ware not in accordance with law and, therefore, they were illegal; and also further declared that all the concerned workmen covered by the said lay offs would be entitled to receive full wages for the period for which they were laid off.2. A few facts leading to the present proceeding may now be stated:The petitioner company is registered under the Indian Companies Act and is engaged In the business of manufacturing pharmaceutical and chemicals. It has got its factory at Renofi in Baroda District.3. The respondent is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act and commands memb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-27-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Guj165; (1980)0GLR232
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The appellant was the owner of survey Nos. 432. 433, 434 and 461 of village Kholvad in Kamrej Taluka of Surat District. Respondents I and 2 claim to be his protected tenants under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act' for the sake of brevity). On 12th December 1956, the appellant -3erved upon respondents 1 and 2 notice terminating under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act their tenancy in respect of the lands in question. On 31st December 1956, the appellant created a trust in respect of the lands in question for the purpose of running a free public dispensary and for giving scholarships to Muslim students for prosecuting their studies. On 20th January 1957, he made an application for registration of that trust which was styled as 'Dadabhai Trust- under Section 18 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. On 31st January 1967, it was registered under S. 19 of the Bombay public Trusts Act. Respondents...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-13-1979
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
Decided on : Jul-10-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Guj35; (1979)2GLR84
M.K. Shah, J.1. This is an appeal by the original plaintiff whose suit against the Union of India for a declaration that the order dated 18th April 1966 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 29,926.14 paise passed by the Regional Settlement Commissioner in proceedings under Section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 ('1954 Act') was illegal ultra vires and without jurisdiction and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from recovering the same as arrears of land revenue, was dismissed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, (6th Court), Ahmedabad by his judgment and decree dated 13th October. 1972.2. After 25th April, 1962, the suit property considered as an evacuee property by virtue of its having been already declared as an evacuee property under the 1950 Act, was acquired under the provisions of Chap. 3 of the 1954 Act so as to form part of the compensation pool for rehabilitation of persons displaced from Pakistan and accordingly the su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-21-1979
Reported in : [1980]121ITR311(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. The petitioner herein is a public limited company having its registered office at Kathwada in Ahmedabad District and the relief which is sought in this writ petition is against the ITO, Company Circle IX, praying that the record and proceedings of the case of the petitioner-company before the respondent may be called for and after looking into the same, a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction and/or instruction or any order of the same nature under art. 226 should be issued quashing the order of the ITO, Ex. 'N', whereby the ITO has refused to issue tax clearance certificate to the applicant. The petitioner has also prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order, instruction or direction of the same nature directing the respondent to promptly grant the tax clearance certificate as prayed for by the applicant. The facts leading to this petition are as follows : By a letter dated April 27,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-07-1979
Reported in : (1980)21GLR15
B.K. Mehta, J.1. In this group of Civil Applications, the petitioner-Mrs. Tarabai Lalji, who was plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 25 of 1968 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Jamnagar, being suit under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff for the sake of convenience) challenges the award of April 22,1975 made by the Arbitrator Shri N.M. Miabhoy, retired Chief Justice of this Court, in the matter of damages pertaining to lease of certain lands admeasuring acres 2872-16 gunthas situate at village Jodiya in Jamnagar district, granted by the Government of the State of Gujarat to the plaintiff for manufacture of salt, on the grounds, inter alia, that the award being a nullity, and prays for setting aside the said award and for certain consequential reliefs as a result thereof.2. The State of Gujarat, which was defendant in the suit (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Government' for the sake of convenience) on the other hand, prays fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-22-1979
Reported in : 1979CENCUS391D
ORDERS.H. Sheth, J.1. Application praying to declare that Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as introduced by Act 22 of 1973, is ultra vires and to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash or set aside the orders dated 10-12-1976 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Surat and dated 28-8-1978 of the Appellate Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Bombay (Exhibits 'FT and 'N') and/demands letter dated 31-12-1976 of the Superintendent of the Central Excise, Atul (Exhibits 'J-1' to 'J-5') and also letter dated 19-1-1977 of the Superintendent) CentralExcise Atul (Exhibits 'K-1' to K-5') and to direct the respondents to withdraw or cancel the said orders at Exhibits 'H' & 'N') and the said demands at (Exhibits 'J-1' to 'J-5', 'k-1' to 'K-5') and...etc.Messrs Atic Industries Limited is the petitioner. The petitioner is...
Tag this Judgment!