Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1963)4GLR571; (1963)IILLJ726Guj
Desai, C.J.1. Bhalchandra Ramchandra Vaidya, the petitioner before us has filed this special Civil Application against the State of Gujarat praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other orders and directions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calling for the record and proceedings of the case against the petitioner and quashing and setting aside an order of dismissal passed against the petitioner and for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other writs, orders and directions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, ordering the State of Gujarat to cancel the said order of dismissal or to forbear from taking any steps or action under the said order and from doing any act prejudicial to the rights and interests of the petitioner. The petitioner has further asked for a declaration that the petitioner is and be continued in service of the Police Department of the State of Gujarat and be given his proper seniority and other reliefs.2. in the year ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1963Guj297; (1963)GLR523
K.T. Desai, C.J.1. This is 'an appeal from the decision of the Election Tribunal at Palanpur, Banaskantha District, given on the 13th October, 1962, dismissing the petition filed by Shri Laljibhai Joclhabhai Bar, the appellant before us, and ordering him to pay a gum of Rs. 500/- by way of costs to Vinod-charndra Jethalal Patel the respondent before us.2. The appellant (who will hereinafter be referred to as 'the petitioner') was an elector in the Deesa Legislative Assembly Constituency of Gujarat when the last general election was held in the month of February, 1962. The respondent was a candidate who had stood for election from the said constituency. On 2oth January, 1962, nomination papers were filed proposing the respondent as a candidate for the election. There were also filed four nomination papers, proposing the name of Jivrajbhai Kesarbhai Desai. There were also other nomination papers filed proposing the names of other candidates for the purpose of election. Scrutiny of the no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1965Guj234a
Desai, C.J. (1) This special civil application raises important questions of law relating to the construction of some of the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. There has been a divergence of opinion between the State Government on the one hand and the Central Government on the other, and divergent views have been held at different times. The petitioners are persons employed in the subordinate secretariat service of the Government of the State of Gujarat. Prior to the reorganisation of the State of Bombay on 1st November 1956, they were employed in the subordinate secretariat service of the existing State of Bombay. They have prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to restrain the State of Gujarat, its agents and servants from implementing the resolution dated 1st April 1960,passed by the Government of the former State of Bombay where under an alteration had been made in the previous...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1963)GLR945
Shelat, C.J. 1. These three orders have been challenged on various grounds which, as aforesaid, have been taken by the respective petitioners in their petitions. As aforesaid, in Special Civil Application No. 827 of 1961, the petitioner therein has raised certain additional grounds which we will deal separately. The first ground amongst the several grounds common to these three petitions is that the three impugned orders have been passed mala fide and are therefore, invalid. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 604 of 1961 has alleged (1) that the order impugned by him is mala fide because it has been passed to circumvent the orders passed in his favour in the aforesaid suit filed by him against the respondent, (2) to bring pressure against him for obtaining the said order from the civil Court, (3) that the impugned order was passed at a time when the aforesaid suit had become ripe for hearing, and (4) to deprive him of the possible fruits of the result of the aforesaid s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1963Guj80; (1963)GLR405; (1964)0GLR481
MIABHOY, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner Shri Jayantilal Amratlal Shodhan prays for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction or order for setting aside two notifications under Section 4 and 6 and proceedings under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (I of 1894) (hereinafter called the ('Act') and for directing the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 not to take action under those notifications and proceedings. Alternatively, the petitioner prays for a writ of certiorarl or any other writ, direction or order for quashing the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act andfor setting aside the notification under Section 6 ofthe Act.2. The petitioner is the owner of final plot No, 686 of the Ellisbridge Town Planning Scheme No.3, situated' in Moje Chhadavad, City. Taluka, Ahmedabad, admeasuring 7018' square yards. The respondent No. 1 was, at the relevant time, the Commissioner, Baroda Division, Baroda. He issue...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1965Guj173
Vakil, J.(1)First Appeal No. 224 of 1963 was filed the State of Gujarat against the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Broach in Special Civil Suit No. 1 of 1962 on 5-11-1962. When this appeal was put on board final hearing, the appellant filed Civil Application No. 114 of 1964 on the 22nd of January stating for reasons mentioned therein the State of Maharashtra was a necessary party to the proceeding and that, therefore, it be joined as a party and the State of Gujarat be allowed to raise a question about the liability of the State of Maharashtra in this First Appeal No. 224 of 1963. Having regard to the facts of the case which we shall presently state, it will be convenient to deal with and dispose of both these matters by a common object. The plaintiff-respondent joined service of the then Government of Bombay as a Clerk in the Revenue Department in the year 1926. Later on he was taken up as Aval Karkun. There is a dispute as to when he was confirmed, but that has ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1964)5GLR907
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. This appeal comes from the Kutch area. On behalf of respondents Mr. Mankad raises a preliminary objection that no appeal lies from the appellate decree of the learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court.2. It will be convenient to mention a few facts at first. Suit No. 40 of 1952 was Sled in the District Court of Kutch at Bhuj on the 16th June 1952 That suit was dismissed by the District Court on the 14th of October 1957. The plaintiff filed from the decree in that suit First Appeal No. 8 of 1958 in the High Court of Bombay sitting at Rajkot. That appeal was decided by a single Judge of that High Court. That appeal was dismissed on 27th August 1958. Prom that appellate decree plaintiff preferred an appeal to the same High Court of Bombay which was numbered as Letters Patent Appeal No. 28 of 1959. That appeal was admitted by a Division Bench of that High Court on the 27th of April 1959 Whilst this appeal was pending on the file of the Bombay High Court the Bombay Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1965Guj87; (1964)10GLR769
Miabhoy, J.(1) In this group of six appeals, a preliminary objection has been raised for decision. The objection was first raised when Letters Patent Appeal No. 8 of 1960 was called out for hearing. As the objection affected a number of other Letters Patent Appeals, we adjourned the hearing of the appeal and directed that all other Letters Patent Appeals in which the same objection was likely to be raised should be fixed for hearing them together so that the preliminary objection, if raised, could be decided after hearing all the learned Advocates appearing therein. It is in pursuance of that order that all the above appeals are fixed for hearing the preliminary objection if the same happens to be raised. This judgment will dispose of the preliminary objection which is raised by all the learned Advocates for the respondents in all the appeals.(2) The preliminary objection is that the present appeals are incompetent without the certificate of the learned Judgers of he Bombay High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1965Guj270
Metha, J. (1) This appeal arises from the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baroda, in Special Civil Suit No. 31 of 1957, dated 30th October 1958, by which he had decreed the plaintiff's claim for arrears of maintenance at Rs. 115/- per month and had accordingly awarded Rs. 2,640/- to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's claim was for Rs.300/- for herself, and Rs. 45/-, for pay of the three maid servants, in all Rs. 345/- per month.(2) The plaintiff is the widow of late Thakore of Gadboriad State, Omkarsinji, who expired on 17th February 1934. The defendant succeeded to the Gadi of the State, which was a semi-jurisdictional State, with civil, criminal and revenue jurisdiction. The Thakore had a right to recover custom, excise and land revenue. The plaintiff based her claim of maintenance on the Hindu Law and as the Gadboriad State was governed by the custom of primogeniture. After the death of her husband the Thakore's estate was taken under management for abo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1965Guj248
Shelat, C.J.(1) This petition raises a question of interpretation of the notification No.S.O.1077 dated April 29, 1960, issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred upon it by section 47A read with section 48 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 64 of 1950, whereby the Central Government approved the scheme forwarded by the Government of Bombay relating to the re-organization on the Bombay State Road Transport Corporation and the dissolution of the Kutch State Road Transport Corporation and Saurashtra State Road Transport Corporation.(2) The petitioner corporation under section 47A(3)(b) of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. The Bombay Road Transport Corporation and Saurashtra State Road Transport Corporation were constituted under section 3 of the said Act. The third respondents held a permit under section 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act, IV of 1939, for plying stage carriages in respect of a route known Vallabhipur-Dhola Route. That permit was to expire on...
Tag this Judgment!