GUJARAT HIGH COURT
K.M. Thaker, J.
Jayantram Vallabhdas Meswania —Petitioner
versus
Vallabhdas Govindram Meswania —Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 13954 of 2012
Decided on 18.10.2012
Result: Special Civil Application disposed of.
K.M. Thaker, J.—In present petition, which portrays history of avoidable and unfortunate litigation between father and son the petitioner has prayed that:
“10(B) This Hon’ble Court would be pleased to allow present Application by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order and direction quashing and setting aside the orders dated 14.5.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Keshod, District Junagadh and be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 20th September 2012 passed by the District Collector, Junagadh, in the interest of justice.
(C) Pending admission hearing and till final disposal of present petition This Hon’ble Court would be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the impugned order dated 14.5.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Keshod and thereby be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the impugned order dated 20th September 2012 passed by the District Collector, Junagadh, in the interest of justice and equity and be pleased to restrain the respondents from taking the possession of one room, in which the petitioner is residing.”
2. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to mention that at the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to handover possession by 31st December 2012. However, learned counsel for petitioner has also made submissions on merits against the orders and contended that the orders are not sustainable and may be set aside.
3. Facts:
3.1. At the outset it is necessary to mention that the petitioner is son of the respondent father who was compelled to file application before the learned Magistrate.
3.2. The petitioner herein is the original opponent before the first adjudicating authority and the respondent is the original applicant before the first adjudicating authority.
3.3. The relevant facts involved in and giving rise to present petition are that on the ground that the petitioner is not taking proper care and that therefore he needs possession of the part of the premises which are occupied by the petitioner i.e. original opponent, present respondent moved an application under the provisions of the aforesaid Act and prayed for maintenance as well as getting possession of the part of the premises in occupation of the petitioner. The petitioner was impleaded as opponent in an application filed by present respondent under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In the said application present respondent prayed, inter alia, that the opponent of the application i.e. present petitioner may be directed to handover possession of part of the premises which is occupied by the opponent i.e. present petitioner.
3.4. The matter was referred for conciliation to the conciliation officer. However, the conciliation proceedings failed and that therefore the first adjudicating authority i.e. the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Keshod, District: Junagadh proceeded with the hearing of the application.
3.5. Before the first adjudicating authority the respondent herein i.e. the original applicant claimed and contended that the opponent i.e. present petitioner had forcibly snatched away the room in the premises and had started occupying the said room.
3.6. On the other hand, the petitioner i.e. the original opponent contended before the first adjudicating authority that he is earning meagre amount by performing pooja and after death of his mother he is residing in the said room since last many years. Present petitioner also contended that the relief prayed for by the applicant i.e. present respondent is not covered under the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Act and that therefore the authority does n
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.