Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1973)14GLR194
A.D. Desai, J.1. This second appeal comes before us for final decision on the reference made by our brother D. A. Desai. J. Shortly stated the relevant facts are that the appellant-defendant and respondent-plaintiff are neighbours and their houses are adjoining. The suit house of the defendant is situated in the east of that of the plaintiff. Till the filing of the suit, the house of the defendant had a ground floor only. There is a wall dividing the two houses. The total length of the wall is 22 feet. The breadth of the wall is 9 inches. There is no dispute between the parties that the common wall having the length of 19 feet on the ground floor is a joint wall. The first 4 feet of the wall is admittedly of the exclusive ownership of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had constructed a first floor and in so doing he increased the height of this common wall. It was the case of the plaintiff that this wall on the first floor which was erected on the common wall was his exclusive property. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1975)16GLR1039
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. A question of fundamental importance (and of principle) which is likely to have great impact on the lives and careers of newly graduated doctors prosecuting their studies for post-graduate courses is raised in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is raised by petitioner No. 1 (along with 3 other petitioners) who secured 64.80% marks in the speciality of medicine as against 53% secured by respondent No. 7 at the final M.B.B.S. Examination upon the latter (and others who secured less marks than him) being preferred to him for appointment as Registrar in Medicine at the L.G. Hospital, Ahmedabad, a teaching hospital run by the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad. They have challenged the appointments made in disregard of their claim to the said post by virtue of much higher marks and better merits than the appointees as being unprincipled, arbitrary, capricious and violative of ArticleS 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India.2. Respondent No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1991]192ITR633(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J.1. Messrs. Chinubhai Manibhai and Shrenik Kasturbhai entered into an agreement dated December 28, 1961, with Messrs. Machinefabriek Reineveld, a company incorporated in Holland with limited liability ('foreign company' for short), under which the foreign company agreed to place at the disposal of the limited liability company, which Messrs. Chinubhai Manibhai and Shrenik Kasturbhai intended to incorporate in India all the present and future know-how, the use of patents and all technical details with complete workshop drawings for manufacture of their engineering products, on the terms and conditions set out in the agreement. Such technical collaboration was for a period of ten years from the date of incorporation of the said limited liability company or from the date effective steps were taken in execution of the agreement, whichever was later. It was provided in the agreement that, notwithstanding the expiry of the agreement, after the stipulated period of ten years, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1990Guj34; (1989)2GLR812
Gokulakrishnan, C. J.1. This special civil application is to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the State Government to cancel S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act Notification dt. Keith March 1983 and also to quash S. 6 of the said Land Acquisition Act Notification and also for directing the State Government not to proceed further with the impugned notifications or take any other action in that a air. There is an alternative prayer for issuing a writ or direction directing respondent No. 1 to refer the matter to the District Court, Surat under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for deciding the proportion of the compensation payable to the petitioners. The short facts of this case are that s. 4(1) Notification was issued in respect of the land, in question in this special civil application and other lands on 16-3-1983. Before the issuance of the said Notification the petitioner No. 1 herein entered into a Banakhat with Shri Kalidas Gopalbhai Patel, who is the original own...
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 : (1965)6GLR531
J.B. Mehta, J.1. This revision petition raises an interesting question as to whether an accused can appear as a lawyer for the co-accused.2. The short facts of this petition are as under; The petitioner Gohel Himatsingh Lakhaji is the complainant who has filed a complaint for defamation against six accused. The first four accused were the original accused in another criminal case No. 1798/ 1962 and at that time the complainant was examined as a witness. In that criminal case accused Nos. 3 and 6 had appeared for those four accused and had cross-examined the complainant. The complainant alleges that those questions which were put to him were defamatory and therefore he has filed the present complaint against the four accused and the two lawyers accused Nos. 5 and 6. Accused No. 5 Patel Rambhai Fakirbhai was the lawyer who had put these questions which are alleged to be defamatory and accused No. 6 Patel Kanubhai Jesangbhai was the other lawyer instructing accused No. 5. During the prese...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2002)3GLR569
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The challenge in this petition is against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, dated 27-4-2000 in Original Application No. 616 of 1999 whereby the application claiming the right of appointment on compassionate ground of the petitioner after the death of his father came to be rejected.2. A relevant and material conspectus of facts leading to the rise of this petition may be highlighted at the outset :(i) The father of the petitioner who was serving in Railway expired on 9-1-1985, while in service. (ii) At the time of death of father of the petitioner, the petitioner was minor as his birth date has been 11-4-1976. (iii) The petitioner attained the age of majority upon completion of 18 years, and immediately thereafter, an application for appointment on compassionate ground was filed by him on 19-7-1995. (iv) The petitioner had also personally visited the office of the D.R.M. of Railway Authority and had submitted another application on 8-10-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2000)1GLR111
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner has sought a direction on the Officer in charge of Navsari Police Station to trace out the respondents nos.1 and 2 along with his two children, namely, daughter Nabeelah and son Yaseen claiming custody of these children. According to the petitioner he and the respondent no.1, Shahida married on 11th July 1990 as per the Islamic rites. At that time the respondent no.1 was an Indian citizen. Thereafter, due to marriage she became a citizen of Botswana following the petitioner's citizenship. According to the petitioner a daughter and a son were born during the marriage and they are 8 and 4 years of age respectively. Some differences arose between the parties, as a result of which according to the petitioner the respondent no.1 left his house along with their two children. The petitioner learnt that they had crossed the border of that country. The petitioner, therefore, went to Johannesburg in South Africa, which is an adjoining country and filed a pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1995)2GLR1615
Rajesh Balia, J.1. By this petition the petitioner-Bhavnagar Municipality seeks for a writ of prohibition against the respondent No. 1 from proceeding with the application moved by the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for deciding the controversy raised before me are that the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 claiming themselves to be primary teachers of the schools run by the respondent Municipality filed an application under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act for making recovery of their salary from the petitioner. On an earlier occasion disputes of the similar type having been raised between the parties the Municipality has contested its liability to pay salary of the primary teachers employed at various schools run under its jurisdiction on the ground that the Municipality is not the employer and it is the responsibility of the Administrative Officer to make the payment. That plea having been r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1996)2GLR515
S.D. Shah, J.1. In this Civil Revision Application against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD) at Dhoraji at Exh. 185 in RCS No. 254 of 1985 insofar as it granted adjournment only on imposing condition of costs, no serious challenge is raised before this Court. To that extent the order is upheld and C.R.A. stands rejected.2. It is not necessary to hear the other side while considering the second request made to this Court. It is a matter between this Court and the serious remarks made by the learned Judge in his order against practising advocate at Dhoraji. The observations made which are stated herein in extenso are undoubtedly directed against the senior advocate and various practices allegedly adopted by the senior advocate for delaying the proceedings of every suit. The learned judge has made reference to the practice being constantly followed by the senior advocate and has passed certain strictures or adverse remarks against the conduct of the senior advocate which ar...
Tag this Judgment!