Gujarat Court December 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.
Hathising Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Ambalal M. Shah and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-06-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Guj73; (1961)GLR117
Bhagwati, J.1. This petition raises an interesting question regarding the power of the Central Government to assume management or control of an industrial undertaking. The question turns on the interpretation of Section 18-A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, to which we shall hereafter refer in this judgment as the 'Act'. It is a question of considerable importance and having regard to the full and detailed arguments which have been presented before us on this question on both sides, it is necessary to set out the facts in some fullness.2. The first petitioner has an undertaking known as 'Hathising Mills' situated in Ahmeda-bad and the first petitioner carries on inter alia the business of spinning cotton yam in the said undertaking. The second petitioner is the proprietor of the firm of M/S. Maneklal Mansukhbhai and Company who arc the Managing Agents of the first petitioner. The second petitioner is also an ex officio Director of the first petitioner and along...
The State of Bombay ( Now Gujarat) Vs. Patel Harmanbhai Nathabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-06-1960
Reported in: (1961)2GLR471
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is a second appeal by the State against the judgment and decree in appeal of the Extra Assistant Judge of Kaira decreeing suit No. 138 of 1953 filed against the State by the original plaintiff Patel Harmanbhai Nathabhai for a declaration that the defendant, viz., the State of Bombay, had no right to remove the Kachcha temporary huts erected on his land and for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from removing or demolishing the huts standing on his land. The land in question is Survey No. 2366/6/1 situated at Anand. The original owner Bai Kanku was granted permission on 6-6-39 for making non-agricltural use of the said land on condition that two thirds of the land should be kept open. The condition was that an area of 902-1 sq. yds., sq. ft. should be kept open to the sky as compound. In 1949 it was found that the plaintiff, who had purchased the land from the original owner Bai Kanku, had constructed huts in 71 sq. yards of this area without obtaining...
Bhopo Fakirbhai (Minor) and anr. Vs. Bai Mani D/O Jijibhai Bechardas a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Guj92; (1961)2GLR179
ORDERRaju, J. 1. This is a civil revision application by the original defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in Suit No. 90 of 1959 challenging the order of the 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, ordering that this suit should he consolidated with Suit No. 11 of 1959 notwithstanding their objections and the objections of defendants Nos. 4 to 7 and ordering that the evidence of both the suits be recorded in the former suit. It is contended by the applicants that two of the parties to one of the suits are not parties to the second suit. 2. The learned counsel for the opponents raises a preliminary objection and contends that this application does not lie as it docs not fall within the ambit of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, because no case has been decided by a subordinate Court. He relies on a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Gupta and Co. v. Kripa Ram Bros., : AIR1934All620 , and contends that although the word 'case' does not necessarily mean a suit and may includ...
Gohel Dhulabhai Kalubhai Vs. Gohel Mabhai Himatsingh
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Guj129; (1961)GLR433
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is a second appeal by the original defendant against the judgment and decree in appeal of the learned District Judge of Panch Mahals at Godhra in a suit filed by the respondent for the redemption of the suit property, which was in the possession of the defendant as usufructuary mortgagee. The property is the land S. No. 387/3 in Bakrol village. The admitted facts are that there were three mortgages in respect of the said property in favour of the same mortgagee, namely the appellant. The first is a usufructuary mortgage dated 10-2-1944 for Rs. 999/- in which the period was fixed at seven years. The second is a mortgage dated 8-5-1946 for Rs. 200/-. It is termed as an additional possessory mortgage, and it has fixed the period at seven years. The third is also an additional possessory mortgage dated 12-12-1947 for Rs. 250/-, and it has fixed the period of fifteen years. The first Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to redeem the mortgage dated 10-2-1944, but ...
Jagjivandas Bhikabhai Vs. Gumanbhai Narottamdas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-1960
Reported in: (1961)2GLR264
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is a second appeal by the original plaintiff whose suit to recover Rs. 5100/from the detendant said to have been paid on 21-6-49 was dismissed by the District Judge Broach who held that the amount has been paid on 14-6-49 and that therefore the plaintiffs suit filed on 20 was barred by limitation.2. In second appeal the Learned Counsel for the appellant concedes that there is a finding of fact that the amount Rs. 5100/was paid on 14-6-49 and that if this finding is correct the suit would be obviously barred by limitation as it was filed more than three years after that date. But he contends that this finding of fact is vitiated by overlooking the question of estoppel. He urged that even if the money was paid on 14-6-49 there was an agreement or understanding between the parties that the money was to be treated as having been paid on 21-6-49. He stated that estoppel had not been pleaded either in the plaint or even in the first appeal. He however relies on Abdullah ...
Naranbhai Devabhai Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-02-1960
Reported in: (1961)2GLR142
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is a criminal revision application against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge of Surat Shri B.K. Soonawala in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1960 against the judgment of the second Extra Assistant Sessions Judge of Surat in Sessions Case No. 95 of 1939. The application is by the original accused No. 2. The charge against him at the Sessions trial was under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of one Makan Chhiba. The trial court convicted accused No. 2 under Section 325 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and also some other co-accused. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the convictions of accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4, and as regards accused No. 2, he altered the conviction from Section 325 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, to one under Section 304, part II, Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the main prosecution witnesses, upon whom the prosecution relied,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›