Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-17-1977
Reported in : (1978)0GLR776; (1978)IILLJ480Guj
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. These two petitions are directed against the common respondent, the Gujarat Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board. The petitioner in the former petition is one V. C. Shroff, who was at the time of his premature retirement an executive engineer in the selection grade under the Board. The petitioner in the latter petition is one P. J. Pandya, who too was an executive engineer under the Board in the selection grade. Both these petitioners were made to retire compulsorily on the completion of the 55th year of their life. In these two petitions, each petitioner challenges the said order of premature retirement essentially on the ground that the order is passed in violation of the mandatory provisions of Regulation No. 72 framed by the Board in exercise of statutory authority vested in it. On the other hand, the respondent-Board, has tried to support the orders in question by urging that the orders are within the strict framework of the said Regulation No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-19-1977
Reported in : 1978CriLJ1192; (1978)GLR18
ORDERM.P. Thakkar, J.1. Not infrequently one who attempts to do his best conscientiously gets a slap on the cheek rather than a pat on the back as is revealed by the present proceedings arising out of observations made and strictures passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, against a Judicial Magistrate, First Class, subordinate to him in the course of a transfer application instituted in his Court. The observations and strictures appear to be exteremely unfair and uncalled for and warrant interference at the hands of this Court in order to make amends to the learned Magistrate so that one who is concerned with the administration of justice himself does not suffer from a sense or feeling of injustice. It appears that the learned Magistrate. Shri R.P. Patel, LL. M., made a bona fide effort in order to bring about reconciliation between a husband and wile in a proceeding for maintenance pending in his Court. Now, the learned Sessions Judge has made certain observations which woul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-18-1977
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
Decided on : Aug-16-1977
Reported in : (1978)19GLR159
A.N. Surti, J.1. The short question which arises for my consideration in the present criminal revision application is whether the learned Magistrate was justified in dropping the proceedings before him and in releasing the accused persons in respect of the complaint filed against the accused persons in regard to certain offences alleged to have taken place before the Mamlatdar and the Insolvency Court having regard to Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.2. In order to appreciate the point canvassed by Mr. Suresh M. Shah the learned advocate for the petitioner-original complainant, a few relevant facts may be stated.3. The petitioner-complainant had purchased Hundis of Rs. 22,000/- in May, 1966 from one Haji Amad Mamad Dada Habib Jiya at Dhoraji. The said firm went into insolvency, and in the insolvency proceedings, the creditors of the firm were given rateable distribution by the Receiver. The petitioner was ordered to be paid Rs. 9900/- in respect of his aforesaid clai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-02-1977
Reported in : (1978)19GLR626
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. Two questions arise in this revisional application directed against an interlocutory order passed by the learned Judge presiding over 10th Court, City Civil Court, on July 23, 1976, namely, (1) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the document in question was a 'bond' within the meaning of Section 2(c)(ii) of the Bombay Stamp Act 1958, and (2) whether the learned trial Judge was empowered to pass an order directing the petitioner-plaintiff to pay the deficit stamp fees on the footing that the document was a bond alongwith ten times the penalty on the amount of deficit.2. So far as the first point is concerned, the view taken by the learned trial Judge appears to be exceptionable. Under the document in question executed on October 17, 1972 which is attested by witnesses and which does not make he amount under the document payable to order or bearer, a new arrangement has been arrived at in respect of the preexisting liability for a sum of Rs. 1500...
Tag this Judgment!