Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-14-1974
Reported in : AIR1976Guj8; (1975)GLR764
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. The question which confronts the Court is whether a Pleader enrolled under the Bombay Pleader Act of 1920, hereafter called the 'Pleaders Act', who has been removed from practice can be reinstated under the general powers of superintendence exercisable by the High Court subsequent to the enforcement of the Advocates Act of 1961.2. A few facts require to be mentioned in order to understand the Point at issue. The Petitioner, Pragjibhai Kesurbhai Patel, was practicing as a Pleader at Sinor in the Baroda District. It appears that one Mavjibhai Govindbhai a client of petitioner Pragjibhai made an application to the learned District Judge of Baroda under Section 26 of the Pleaders Act, Insurance of the report submitted by the learned District Judge the matter came up before a Division Bench of this High Court by way of Misc. Civil Appln No.293 of 1965. By an order D/- 8-3-1966 the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct and that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-07-1974
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
Decided on : Feb-12-1974
Reported in : (1974)15GLR736
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhavnagar appears to hold the view that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for an owner of an oil mill who sells adulterated oil in packed tins and pleads guilty to it to enter the gates of a jail. This view has been taken by the learned Magistrate notwithstanding the fact that barely three months back the same mill-owner was charged for a similar offence under the relevant section of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (referred to as the 'P.F.A. Act' hereafter) to which he pleaded guilty and had been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 180/-. In the background of these facts a notice was issued by the Court in exercise of powers under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to opponents accused Nos. 1 and 2 to show cause why the sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/ - should not enhanced.2. On July 29, 1970 at about 10-00 a.m. Saiyed Mohmad Allarakh, Food Inspector of Bhavnagar Municipa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-18-1974
Reported in : AIR1975Guj109
1. The facts leading to this appeal briefly stated are as under:The present respondent filed a suit in the court of the learned Civil Judge at Limbdi alleging that they were the owners of a house consisting of two rooms facing east having continuous back wall on the west in Ambali Sheri locality at Limbdi. On the west of this wall, was a naveli or narrow lane 218'- 8' long and 3'-6' broad. On the other side of the Naveli was the back wall of the defendant's house. According to the plaintiffs they had one window measuring 2'x2' in the back wall of their house through which a person could go in the navel and they had two ventilators in each of the two rooms. According to them the two ventilators in the southern room had been placed two to three years ago whereas the two ventilators in the northern room and the window referred to above existed for a number of years. The plaintiffs claimed a right to get light and air through these apertures and they claimed a right of way to enter the nav...
Tag this Judgment!