Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-14-1973
Reported in : (1975)16GLR130
D.A. Desai, J.1. Somabhai Ishwarbhai Bhagat filed Regular Civil Suit No. 2348 of 1971 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad complaining of infringement of patent No. 124131 which, according to the evidence was sealed on 26th October 1971 but which, according to Mr. P.M. Raval, learned Advocate now tells me, was sealed on 15th October 1971.2. The patent was in respect of a roasting apparatus and complete specification briefly describes the invention as providing a vertical rotating shaft, the vertical rotating shaft being provided on its upper portion with a bevel gear wheel somewhere near the middle of the shaft, with a lever latch for raising or lowering the vertical shaft as required. At the lower end of the vertical rotating shaft a bent bracket would be fixed to it by a bolt and nut, the other end of the bent bracket being connected to a bent semi-circular and angular shovel. The invention further claims that the centre of the semi-circular and angular shovel will be co-axial to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-11-1973
Reported in : (1974)15GLR7
J.B. Mehta, J.1. In the first petition the petitioner temporary Chief Store Keeper challenges the validity of the action of the Respondent-Oil Natural Gas Commission, hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission' re-fixing the seniority of the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in the cadre of chief store-keepers so as to treat these backward class respondents as senior. In the second petition, the petitioner has given a withdrawal Purshis so far as respondents Nos. 5 to 11 are concerned and has now confined his attack only so far as Respondent No. 4 Gyansing is concerned and the petitioner has challenged action of the Commission in calling respondent No. 4 at the interview which was to be held on February 8, 1972, by the Departmental Promotion Committee for the post of Executive Engineer (Production) on the footing that here also this backward class Respondent No. 4 was senior to the petitioner temporary Assistant Engineer, Production. In the third petition also the petitioner havi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-17-1973
Reported in : AIR1974Guj45; (1973)GLR903
Divan, J.1. The petitioner herein has challenged certain orders passed by the Collector of Mehsana in connection with matters arising before him under the provisions of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and has also challenged the action of the second respondent, the President of Kalol Municipality, in connection with certain meetings held on the requisition by some of the members of that Municipality. The Petitioner is appearing in person. He is an elected councillor of this municipality. At the time of the presentation of the petition, he was the Chairman of the Legal Committee of Kalol Municipality. Respondent No. 2 is the President of the Municipality and respondent No. 3 is the Acting Chief Officer of the Kalol Municipality, who was appointed to that post under the circumstances set out in the petition. Respondent No. 1 is the Collector of Mehsana. Respondent No. 4 is the Government of Gujarat. Respondent No. 5 is the former Chief Officer of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-17-1973
Reported in : (1973)14GLR903
B.J. Divan, J.1. The petitioner herein has challenged certain orders passed by the Collector of Mehsana in connection with matters arising before him under the provisions of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and has also challenged the action of the second respondent, the President of Kalol Municipality, in connection with certain meetings held on the requisition by some of the members of that Municipality. The petitioner is appearing in person. He is an elected councillor of this municipality. At the time of the presentation of the petition, he was the Chairman of the Legal Committee of Kalol Municipality. Respondent No. 2 is the President of the Municipality and respondent No. 3 is the Acting Chief Officer of the Kalol Municipality, who was appointed to that post under the circumstances set out in the petition. Respondent No. 1 is the Collector of Mehsana. Respondent No. 4 is the Government of Gujarat. Respondent No. 5 is the former Chief Offic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-24-1973
Reported in : (1974)15GLR345
S.H. Sheth, J.1. Khodabhai Chhaganbhai the father of petitioners Nos. 2 to 8 and husband of petitioner No. 1 was the' tenant in respect of S. Nos. 178/2, 179 and 180 of village Tarsali in Padra Taluka of Baroda district. S. No. 178/2 has been admeasuring 7 Gunthas, S. No. 179 has been admeasuring 2 acres and 34 Gunthas and S. No. 180 has been admeasuring 34 Gunthas. They belonged to one Bai Jadav widow of Somabhai Punjabhai. Since Bai Jadav was a widow statutory purchase of these lands under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act for the sake of brevity) was postponed. Bai Jadav died on 14th February 1961. She had one son Mangaldas who had predeceased her. She was survived by three daughters who are the respondents Nos. 1,2 and 3 to this petition. On 6th August 1956, Bai Jadav executed a will by which she bequeathed these lands upon respondent No. 4 Ashokkumar who is the son of one of her daughters-Savita, responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-20-1973
Reported in : AIR1973Guj227; (1974)0GLR54
C.V. Rane, J.1. This judgment will govern the disposal of the first appeals Nos.481 of 1967 and 1112 of 1969, both of which arise out of the judgment and decree dated 11.1.1967 of the learned Judge, City civil Court, 5th Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No.162 of 1964. The facts of the above suit were in brief as under:Lalbhai Chunilai died in the year 1915 leaving behind him his widow Bai Mukta alias Bai Manek. Lalbhai's brother Manekal died on 16.12.1959 leaving behind him his widow Bai Champa son Devendrakumar and two daughters namely (1) Nirmalaben and Bai Suryakanta. Bai Manek also died on 6th of June, 1963. During her life time Bai Manek had transferred some of the properties which she had inherited from her husband. Some of the suit properties were sold by Bai Manek to one Jamnadas Harilal on 12th October 1928. Reversionary heirs of Laibhai Chunilal had filed a suit to set aside the above alienations and a decree was passed in their favour. Bai Manek had bequeathed some of the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-30-1973
Reported in : AIR1974Guj174
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The plaintiff is a displaced person from West Pakistan. He does not hold a verified claim. He is. therefore, a non-claimant. He has been residing in a tenement situate in Varashiya Colony at Baroda which is a Government built colony. The tenement in his occupation was allotted to him. The Central Government some time back took decision to dispose of all the tenements in Varashiya Colony. The tenement in the occupation of the plaintiff was therefore also to be. disposed of. The plaintiff applied to the appropriate authority to transfer to him the tenement in his occupation. He relied upon Rule 42 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation habilitation) Rules, 1955 in support of his application. The appropriate officer rejected his application and -put to sale his tenement. The defendant No. 5 purchased it at the auction sale. The plaintiff, therefore filed, the present suit for a declaration that the auction sale of the tenement in his possession was ultra vires the powers ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-17-1973
Reported in : (1974)0GLR616; (1975)ILLJ169Guj
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner-company has raised two questions in this petition : (1) Whether the manufacture of clinical thermometer falls under the entry of 'electrical, mechanical or general engineering products' specified in Schedule I of the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', when read with Item (18) of Explanation (a) 'mathematical and scientific instruments', and (2) Whether the decision of the Central Government under S. 19A resolving a doubt in this connection only on November 7, 1968, could be implemented retrospectively prior to the date of the decision from August 1, 1965, as intimated by the authorities : The petitioner-company's factory was set up on August 1, 1962, with Japanese collaboration and commercial production started in 1965. By a letter of respondent No. 2, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, date September 4, 1965 the petitioner was asked to implement the Act and the Scheme. Thereafter, the company took up the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-26-1973
Reported in : AIR1975Guj25; (1974)GLR780
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The defendants-tenants in this appeal challenge the eviction decree which has been passed by the learned Single judge in favour of the plaintiff purchasers of the three suit lands. There were other, combanion matters which have not come no in appeal and in this appeal we are concerned only with the purchasers' suit for eviction, of the defendants tenants. The suit lands, originally bore S. Nos. 45 and 46 which are now divided into new S. No. 16 and, new S. Nos. 47 and 50 respectively of village Dumbhal in Chrisai Taluka, Surat District and there is no dispute that they were situated within the distance of two miles of the limits of surat Borough Municipality as on December 28, 1948, when the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', or the 1948 Act' came into force. As far as old S.No.45 was concerned, there was a mortgage with a lease back on march 17, 1880 and that original owner Mulla Alibhai Mulla Habibulla by the sale d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : May-01-1973
Reported in : AIR1974Guj163
ORDER1. This is a revision -petition filed 'by the petitioners-defend ants against the order -passed by the learned Third Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baroda, dated 29th December, 1972 in Special Civil Suit No. 16C of 1971 deciding issue No. 6 as a preliminary issue.2. The receivers - opponents filed Special Civil Suit No. 166 of 1971 in the Civil Court at Baroda for recovery of Rs. 15,500/-, the price of the goods supplied by the insolvents' partnership firm to the present petitioners.3. Manharlal Nathalal and Kantilal Nathalal were the partners of the said firm. Petitioners are sisters of the said insolvents. Insolvency proceeding was filed against 'them. It was Insolvency Proceeding No. 4 of 1970. That Insolvency Petition was filed on 29th April 1970 by the creditors of the insolvents. The aforesaid two partners, of the said firm were adjudged insolvent on 18th July, 1970. Present opponents were appointed receivers by the Insolvency Court in the said insolvency petition. The ...
Tag this Judgment!