Gujarat Court October 1960 Judgments
In Re: Krishnakant Maganlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Guj68; (1961)GLR108
ORDERBhagwati, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Application directed against an order passed by the District Judge, Surat, granting sanction to the petitioner to sell certain immovable property belonging to the joint and undivided Hindu family consisting of himself, his wife and four children who are all minors. The order has been made by the learned District Judge under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The order is substantially in favour of the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner has been granted sanction to sell the said immovable property, but under the order certain condition has been imposed and it is against that condition that the petitioner complains in this Civil Revision Application.2. The facts giving rise to this Civil Revision Application may he briefly stated as follows: The petitioner is the Manager and Karta of the joint and undivided Hindu family consisting of himself, his wife and four children who are ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaktiarkhan Khwaja Nausadkhan Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Guj109; (1961)GLR57
Shelat, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit in which the appellant sued for a declaration that he was a citizen of India; that the order of deportation passed against him on 10-8-1953 was illegal and inoperative; that the passport taken out by him from the Pakistani authorities was void and had no effect against him that his registration as a foreigner was null and void and for an injunction rer training the respondents-defendants from taking any steps against him under the Passport Act. 2. The appellant was born in the village Xalakali in Swat State. In 1932 he Came to India from his native village and settled down in this City. From 1932 to 1945 he worked in several textile Mills and from 1946 until he was deported, he worked continuously in Lal Mills as a weaver. During this period he also worked as a member of the managing committee of a Trade Union of Textile Workers. On 2-2-1949 he got himself registered as a foreigner under the Registration of Foreigner's Act, 1939. On 24-1-1950...
Tag this Judgment!Desai Kantilal Maganlal Vs. Nadiad Borough Municipality at Nadiad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-12-1960
Reported in: (1961)2GLR325
J.M. Shelat, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts further observed:] Mr. Oza, who appears for the appellant-plaintiff, has raised two questions before me:(1) Whether the notice addressed to the municipality through the President and served at the municipal office was valid? and(2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, notice was at all necessary under Section 206a of the Act?2. Now, the first thing that Mr. Oza contended was that under Section 206A, what was contemplated was a notice on the municipality. He argued that under Section 8 of the Act, a municipality is a body corporate with perpetual succession and which can sue and be sued in its name. A municipality, therefore, being a legal entity, a notice to the municipality, though addressed through its President, was a valid notice. Mr. Oza also contended that under Section 206A, the only requirement was that a notic-should be delivered at the municipal office, when a suit is to be filed against such a municipali...
Tag this Judgment!Kadi Municipality Vs. the New Chhotalal Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-06-1960
Reported in: (1961)2GLR153
J.M. Shelat J.[His lordship after narrating the facts proceeded to observe.]1. The principal contention urged on behalf of the Municipality was that the order No. 91/62 which was an order passed under Section 43 of B Class Municipalities Act of Baroda being Act No. XXXII of S.Y. 1983. ceased to exist on the merger of the state of Baroda on August 1 1949 It was also contended that that order was repealed by the Baroda State (Application of Laws) Order 1949 which came into force on July 30 1949 whereby several Acts Central and Bombay were extended to the territories of the former Baroda State. Schedule I of the Baroda State (Application of laws) Order sets out a list of such Acts which were extended to these territories one of the Acts so extended being the Bombay District Municipal Act III of 1901. Since an elaborate argument was addressed to me on Section 5 of this order it would be necessary to recite here that section. That section deals with the repeal of certain enactments in force...
Tag this Judgment!Bhat Parbha Ruda Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-06-1960
Reported in: (1961)2GLR256
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is a Criminal Appeal by one Parbha Ruda who was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad at Himatnagar under Section 376 Indian Penal Code for having committed rape on one Bai Bhurki the wife of one Jiva and also under Sectione 451 Indian Penal Code for having committed criminal trespass by entering her room of the complainant Bai Bhurki with intention of having sexual intercourse with her.2. [His Lorship after narrating the facts further observed:] In appeal it is contended by the Learned Counsel for the appellant that the offence of rape has not been proved that the appellant had not been sent to a medical officer for examination that his clothes had not been sent to the Chemical Analyser and that there is no evidence to show that the appellant had sexual intercourse with Bai Bhurki. It is therefore contended that the conviction for the offence of rape is not warranted and that further he has not committed the offence of criminal trespass, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›