Gujarat Court November 1960 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad Vs. Gandhi Shantilal Girdha ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-17-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Guj196; (1961)GLR304
On 19th September, 1951, at about 4-30 p.m. A was travelling in the bus of which the registered No. was B.Y.D. 2667 and which was driven by the driver of the defendant corporation. It was alleged that that bus was being driven rashly and negligently. At that time another bus of which the registered No. was B.Y.D. 2645 and also belonging to and driven by the driver of the defendant-corporation came from the opposite direction. It happened that B was travelling therein, he having come on that day from Baroda. It was alleged by B that this bus was also being driven rashly and negligently. Consequently, there was a collision between the two buses and A and B sustained injuries as a result of that accident. They were removed to the Civil Hospital where both of them remained as indoor patients. A remained in the hospital as an indoor patient from September 19, to October 23, 1951. B remained in the hospital at Ahmedabad far nearly two months as an indoor patient and was then discharged. He h...
Mangubhai Ranchhodji Desai Vs. Alibhai Nourmohamad and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-14-1960
Reported in: (1961)2GLR102
S.T. Desai, C.J.1. This revision application has been referred to a Division Bench as it raises a question of some importance under the Rent Act. The petitioner is the original defendent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 is the original plaintiff to the suit out of which arises this application. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1900/- as arrears of rent of the property in suit which is a weaving factory. He also sought possession of the same and mesne profits. His case was that the property together with machinery which formed part of the factory had been leased to the defendants for the purpose of a weaving factory at the monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. The defendents in their written statement raised numerous contentions. They claimed that standard rent of the premises should be fixed and that they were entitled to the protection of the rent law. The learned Civil Judge framed two preliminary issues and has decided both of them against the petitioner tenant. The first issue related...
Natwarlal Balabhai Shah and ors. Vs. Dakor Co-operative Sale and Ginni ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-09-1960
Reported in: (1961)2GLR299
S.T. Desai, C.J.1. This petition arises out of certain proceedings which were initiated under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, and the question that we have primarily to answer relates to the meaning and effect of Section 54 of the Act. The first respondent is the Dakor Co-operative Cotton Sale and Ginning and Pressing Society Ltd., whose main business is to purchase cotton produce of cultivators, to get the cotton ginned and pressed and then sell the same. The work of ginning and pressing cotton into bales was done for the Society by a partnership firm, the Siddharth Ginning and Pressing Factory (hereafter to be referred to by us as the Siddharth Factory), in which the four petitioners and four others were partners Besides being partners in the firm of Siddharth Factory the four petitioners were carrying on their separate business in the firm name of Balabhai Lallubhai. There was considerable controversy as to whether the firm of Balabhai Lallubhai was a joint Hindu family...
President. District Local Board Mehsana Vs. Sumant Govardhanray Mehta
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-08-1960
Reported in: (1961)2GLR82
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This petition raises some interesting questions of construction regarding certain provisions of the Bombay Local Boards Act, 1923, (hereinafter referred to by us as the 'said Act'.) The facts giving rise to this petition require to be stated in some detail.2. Prior to the integration of the old Baroda State with the then Province of Bombay, the first respondent was in the service of the old Baroda State and his services had been made available on loan to the District Local Board, Mehsana. since 1945-. During the old regime, there was no post of Chief Officer in the District Local Board, Mehsana, but there was a post of Head Clerk and Accountant, and the first respondent occupied the said post. After the integration, the services of the first respondent continued to be on loan with the District Local Board, Mehsana. In 1950, separate posts of Chief Officer and Head Clerk and Accountant were created by the District Local Board and the first respondent Was posted as Ch...
Ramanlal Nagardas and ors. Vs. M.S. Palnitkar and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Guj38; (1961)2GLR38
Bhagwati, J.1. This petition raises an interesting question regarding the validity of State action in entrusting wholesale distribution of sugar which is an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, only to Co-operative Societies and excluding other dealers holding licences like the Co-operative Societies from such distribution. This action of the State has been challenged by the petitioners, as violative of their fundamental rights under Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and the short question that arises is how far it can meet the challenge of Art. 14. in order to appreciate the contentions which have been urged on behalf of the parties, it is necessary to set out the facts in some detail, 2. The petitioners carry on business as partners in the firm name of 'Sheth Ramanlal Nagardas' at Kalol in the Mehsana District. The petitioners' firm has been carrying on business as wholesale sugar dealers Since the last twelve years and maintains a godown and an office fo...
Parma Motiji Hariji and anr. Vs. Anand Prasad Hiralal Trivedi and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-08-1960
Reported in: (1961)2GLR444
J.M. Shelat, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts observed:]Before I deal with the submission made by Mr. Shah on behalf of the defendants, it would be expedient to state a few facts which are hardly in dispute. As I have said, the suit lands were leased out to the defendants on the 4th of May 1946. At that time although the Bomba Tenancy Act of 1939 had already been enacted it had not been applied to the District of Ahmedabad. By Bombay Act XXVI of 1946 that Act was made applicable to the suit lands and by Section 5(3) of that Act it was provided that every tenant shall on the expiry of one year from the date of the coming into force of that Act be deemed to be a protected tenant for the purposes of the Act and his rights as such protected tenant shall be recorded in the record of rights. Act XXVI of 1946 was brought into force oh the 8th of November 1946. It is clear therefore that the tenancy created on the 4th of May 1946 was governed by the Bombay Tenancy Act 1939 as modifie...
Motibhai Vithalbhai Patel and anr. Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Guj93; (1961)2GLR1
Desai, C.J. 1. This is a Rule taken out at the instance of the Petitioner who is the owner of certain lands against the Respondents, the State of Gujarat and Messrs Karamchand Premchand (Private) Ltd., to show cause why the two Notifications dated 13-6-1958 and 3-6-1960 issued by the State under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, should not be declared to be ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction or authority and the Respondents directed to forbear from exercising any rights over those lands. The petition raises some questions of considerable importance and consequence. As identical questions were raised in a number of other petitions relating to adjoining lands in respect of which, similar notifications have been issued and the respondents in all the petitions are the same we directed that they should all be heard together. 2. The facts require to be stated with some fullness. Of some facts we shall however give only a resume and avoid certain deta...
Rana Jatubha Chakubha Vs. P.M. Shah and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-04-1960
Reported in: (1961)2GLR147
S.T. Desai, C.J.1. This petition raises a question of considerable importance and consequence to tenants who occupy dwelling houses belonging to girasdars and the question relates to construction of certain provisions in the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951. The petitioners are girasdars of the village Bhadvana in Lakhtar Taluka in Zalawad District. Opponents 3 to 6 are agriculturists who are in occupation as tenants of certain dwelling houses of the ownership of the girasdars. On 10th February 1957, the dwelling houses were let out by the girasdars to opponants 3 to 6 under a lease for a period of five years. On expiry of that lease, the girasdars filed a suit in the Civil Court at Lakhtar praying for eviction of the tenants. In their written statement, the tenants raised the contention that they were tenants of the dwelling houses within the meaning and operation of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain that suit. The trial Court decide...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›