Gujarat Court December 1960 Judgments
Ranchhoddas Khimji Ashere Vs. Tempton Jahangir and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Guj137; 1961CriLJ338; (1961)2GLR415
Bhagwati, J.1. This Revision Application is directed against an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Broach, dismissing a Revision Application preferred by the petitioner against an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Broach, rejecting the petitioner's application to cancel an earlier order dated 21st August 1959 passed by the learned Magistrate directing the petitioner to produce certain books of account in a Criminal Case pending against the petitioner in the Court of the learned Magistrate.2. The facts giving rise to this Revision Application may be briefly stated as follows:--Opponent No. 1 filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Broach, charging the petitioner for an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was numbered as Criminal Case No. 1100 of 1959. During the pendency of the complaint. Opponent No. 1 made an application to the learned Magistrate under Section 94 of the Criminal P...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad Vs. Harilal Shankarbhai ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-1960
Reported in: (1961)2GLR495
R.B. Mehta, J.1. This is & second appeal from the decision of the learned Third Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad, who allowed an appeal against the order and decree, which dismissed the plaintiff's suit, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmedabad.2. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant corporation from demolishing a structure built by the plaintiff on a plot of land of which the plaintiff was a lessee, in pursuance of a notice, dated the 11th February 1954, given by the Corporation under the provisions of Section 308 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. The plaintiff was a lessee of a plot of land on which he had built the suit structure, which was a shed since four years prior to the suit, and which, according to the plaintiff, was being used as a godown for storing animal fodder. The Corporation was recovering the municipal taxes from him duri...
Tag this Judgment!Damanbhai Chhabildas Dhruv, Receiver of the Firm Virchand Dharamchand ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-1960
Reported in: (1961)2GLR250
R.B. Mehta. J.1. This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Third Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad, who varied the order and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Viramgam. The appeal raises a short point of Hindu Law in regard to a son's liability to discharge his father's debts.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:There was a firm of Virchand Dharamchand in Viramgam. A suit was filed being suit No. 551/1953 between the partners of this firm for dis solution and accounts. In that suit the plaintiff No. 1, Damanbhai Chhabil bhai Dhruv, was appointed a Receiver. The said firm has lands in the villages of Manserva and Dhdhna and their management was in the hands of the firm's Munim Tribhovandas Balchand Shah, defendant No. 1 in this suit. Tribhovandas had not accounted for the recoveries made by him on oehalf of the firm. A suit, being suit No. 2/7/41, was therefore filed against the Munim Tribhovandas for recovering the dues ...
Tag this Judgment!Chaturjibhai Nathabhai, Secretary, Jasdan Municipality Vs. the State a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-13-1960
Reported in: (1961)2GLR748
N.M. Bhagwati, J.1. The respondent is the owner of a hotel situate on the main road going from the Tower Chowk to the bus-stand near Vajsureshwar Mandir in the City of Jasdan. The respondent applied to the Jasdan Municipality for letting out a portion of the land in front of the hotel for raising a shed for the benefit of his customers during summer. The Jasdan Municipality by a resolution dated 26th February 1959 let out a portion of the land in front of the hotel to the respondent and the respondent erected a shed on this portion of the land and kept benches there for his customers. The period for which this portion of the land was let out in the respondent was upto 31st August 1959. After the period of the lease expired the respondent removed the shed but continued to keep the benches on the portion of the land which had been let out to him. The respondent thereafter made an application to the Jasdan Municipality for a further lease of this portion of the land for a period of one ye...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Sevamal Pevamal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-1960
Reported in: (1961)2GLR242
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The respondent is the owner of & restaurant situate on Plot No. A In Ward No. 7 of the Municipality of Surat. On 8th July 1959 the Encroachment Inspector of the Surat Municipality visited the premises of the respondent when he found an encroachment made by the respondent on public street by affixing a wooden plank measuring about T x 1' in the front portion of his shop. This wooden plank was resting on posts and was projecting on the public street. The respondent had already been fined twice in respect of this encroachment or projection. The Encroach-ment Inspector thereupon filed a complaint against the respondent charging the respondent with having committed the offence under Section 152 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act 1925 (hereinafter referred to by us as the Act). The complaint was filed before the Special Judicial Magistrate First Class Surat. The respondent appeared before the learned Magistrate and his defence was that the wooden plank had been there fo...
Tag this Judgment!Bachubhai Alias Kiritkumar Gopaldas Vs. Bai Dhanlaxmi D/O Gangaram Bod ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Guj141; 1961CriLJ342; (1961)GLR317
Shelat, J.* * * *11. The learned Advocate-General, however, argued that even if the plaintiffs have not been able to satisfactorily establish the factum of marriage, the fact of Gopaldas and Ratan having lived together as husband and wife and having cohabited would raise a presumption of marriage. He relied upon the decision in Chandu Lal v. Khalilar Rahman, ILR (1942) 2 Cal 299 : (AIR 1943 Gal 76), where it has been observed that where parties constantly, openly and continuously lived and cohabited together for several years and had several children and were regarded and recognised as husband and wife by relations and friends, these facts, in the absence of contrary circumstances, afford clear and conclusive evidence of marriage and that presumption would arise under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act that a marriage had taken place between such persons living and cohabiting together. It should be remembered that the condition laid down in this decision for such presumption to ari...
Tag this Judgment!Champaklal Nemchand Vs. the State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-1960
Reported in: (1961)2GLR262
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is a Criminal Revision Application by one Champaklal against his conviction under Section 409 I.P.C. which was confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar. The charge related to Rs. 640/-paid in December 1957 to the applicant who was admittedly a Talati by agriculturists as repayment of Tagavi loans, The applicant had credited Rs. 570/- and odd in the government Treasury, in April 1958. It was the prosecution case that there was, however, one item which was not paid, viz. Rs. 70/- paid by one Sava Jadav to the applicant. Both the courts below have accepted the prosecution case that the money in question had been paid to the applicant as part payment of Tagavi loans by agriculturists concerned. The courts below have came to the conclusion that in regard to Rs. 571-87 nP which the applicant had credited into the Government Treasury there was retention between December 1957 and April 1958 and that this constituted criminal misappropriation and criminal...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Chandubhai Gordhanbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-1960
Reported in: (1961)2GLR266
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is an application for enhancement of the sentence passed on one Chandubhai Gordhanhhai who was convicted on his own plea of guilty under Section 63 read with Section 92 of the Factories Act in respect of worker Dhanji Ramji. While opposing the application for enhancement of the sentence the Learned Counsel for the opponent contends that the conviction is illegal and improper and that the plea of guilty is not really a plea of guilty as the learned Magistrate failed to follow the provisions of Section 242 Criminal Procedure Code. That section reads as follows:When the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him and he shall be asked it he has any cause to show why he should not be convicted; but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge.2. The record shows that before the plea of the accused was taken he was only told that he was prosecuted under Section 63 read with Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Amritlal Haribhai Desai Vs. the State of Bombay (Now Gujarat)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-1960
Reported in: (1961)2GLR268
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is a Second Appeal by the original plaintiff who filed a suit against the State of Bombay for a declaration that the order terminating his services with effect from 1st November 1951, passed on 29th September 1951, was ultra vires and for other incidental reliefs. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court whose Judgment was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. The appellant was a temporary Government servant employed in the Rationing Department and on 29th September 1951 an order was passed terminating his services with effect from 1st November 1951. No reason was given in the order. The learned Assistant Judge, Surat in First Appeal, held that although temporary Government servants were entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, the order in question amounted merely to a termination of services, that is was not by way of punishment and that it did not amount to dismissal. His attention was drawn to the Office Departmental Notes in E...
Tag this Judgment!Bhatt Shantilal Nathji and ors. Vs. Dave Gajanand Ranchhod and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-06-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Guj115; (1961)GLR467; (1961)0GLR471
Raju, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the original defendants against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Panchmahals decreeing in appeal the plaintiffs' suit for a declaration that the Khadki land adjoining their house to the south is of their exclusive ownership, that the defendants have a limited right of way to go to their house through the Khadki, that they had no right to use the Khadki site as passage for their sweepers to carry night soil and for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from using the Khadki as way for their scavengers carrying night soil. The defendants contested the suit and contended that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the Khadki in question and that the Khadki was a public street and that in the alternative the defendants had a general right of passage or the right of way through the Khadki. The trial court found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the Khadki was of their exclusive ownership and therefore it he...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »