Gujarat Court October 1961 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.
Patel Khushalbhai Ashabhai and anr. Vs. Shree Bodal Gram Vikas Sahakak ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-24-1961
Reported in: (1962)3GLR1004
V.B. Raju, J.1. The facts out of which this civil revision application arises can be briefly stated as follows:Two plaintiffs Khushalbhai and Ambalal filed a suit on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all co-sharers in the well situated in the suit land being the heirs of Harakhji Bhavji and Hiraji Rupaji the original owners of the well against the Gram Panchayat of Bodal the Sarpanch of the same village and the District Local Board contending that the defendants were wrongly claiming the well to have vested in the village Panchayat. Mr. M.C. Shah Civil Judge Junior Division Borsad gave permission under Order 1 Rule 8 Civil Procedure Code to bring the suit in a representative capacity. He passed the order on 30-10-57. The suit however came up for hearing before his successor who framed a preliminary issue whether the suit in a representative capacity was maintainable and he gave a finding in the negative on the ground that each of the co-sharers had a separate share in the well and ...
Kamalasing Sitalsing and ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-24-1961
Reported in: (1962)3GLR993
R.B. Mekta, J.1. This revision application has been filed by the five petitioners who were charged before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Sixth Court Ahmedabad for offences under Sections 341 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were convicted under Section 341 and Section 504 I.P.C. and accused No. 5 was convicted under Sections 341 and 504 read with Section 114 I.P.C. Accused No. 1 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer S.I. for 7 days; accused Nos. 2 3 and 4 were each sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- in default to suffer Section I. for 5 days for the offence under Section 341 I.P.C. and accused No. 5 was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- in default to suffer Section I. for 5 days under Section 341 read with Section 114 I.P.C. No seperate sentences were passed against any of the accused under Section 504 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate also passed an order under Section 522(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code against accused No I ...
Sajubha Jehabhai and anr. Vs. Chudasama Jilubha Hathibhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-23-1961
Reported in: (1963)4GLR29
A.R. Bakshi, J.1. This second appeal raises a question of law arising out of an execution application filed by the appellants in the Court of the Civil Judge (J.D.) Dhandhuka.One Rupsing Jethibhai who was the husband of respondent No. 2 Jambai had mortgaged his lands to Rupsangji Kesar and had given possession of the lands to the mortgagee. Rupsangji Kesar thereafter transferred his rights in the lands for Rs. 700/to the appellants and handed over the possession of the lands to them. Respondent No. 2 Jambai filed a suit under Section 15(d) of the D.A.R. Act wherein a decree was passed by the learned Civil Judge Dhandhuka on 23rd December 1948 whereby Jambai was ordered to pay Rs. 700/by five instalments. It was provided under the decree thatIf any of the two instalments remain unpaid then the defendant do recover the entire moneys in respect of the instalments accrued and not accrued due by getting the suit property sold or the defendants take the actual possession of the suit property...
Bhatt Nanalal Bhogilal Vs. Chandulal Bhailal Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-23-1961
Reported in: (1962)3GLR1002
V.B. Raju, J.1. This civil revision application is by a mortgagee challenging the order passed by the 6th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Ahmedabad ordering him to submit accounts of the mortgage debt to the opponent who had purchased the equity of redemption of the mortgage at a Court sale in Darkhast No. 131/53. The opponent had given an application under Section 30(1) of the Bombay Money Lenders Act for account of the mortgage debt. This application was resisted but was allowed by the Court below on the ground that the purchaser of the equity of redemption has a right to ask for accounts from the mortgagee.Under Section 30(1) of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act any debtor may make an application at any time to the Court whether the loan has or has not become payable for taking accounts and for declaring the amount due to the money lender. It is contended that the debtor is the original mortgagor and that the original mortgagor continues to be a debtor even after the property mortgaged...
Bhailal Mohanlal Patel and ors. Vs. Jadurai R. Vyas and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-1961
Reported in: (1962)3GLR682
M.R. Mody, J.1. The Godhra Borough Municipality is a municipality constituted under the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act XVIII of 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The councilors of this municipality were elected at the general election held in 1958. For the year 1958-59 the fifth petitioner was elected as the president whereas for the year 1959-60 the third petitioner was elected as the president of the municipality. For the year 1960-61 the first petitioner was elected as president of the municipality. The term of office for which the first petitioner was elected as president of the municipality having expired the Collector of Panchmahals pursuant to the provisions of Section 19A of the Act issued a notice dated June 26 1961 to the councilors of the municipality informing teem that a meeting of the councilors of the municipality would be held on July 13 1969 for the purpose of electing the president for the year 1961-62. It was also stated in the notice that t...
Gulabchand Zaverchand Mehta Vs. (Patel) Kurji Bhagwanji Kalaria
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj229; (1962)0GLR113
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This Second Appeal raises a short question regarding the validity of the notice to quit given by the plaintiff to the defendant. It is an admitted fact that the tenancy of the defendant was from month to month according to the English calendar month. The plaintiff gave to the defendant a notice dated 7th October 1959 calling upon him to quit the premises which were in his possession as a tenant of the plaintiff. The material portion of the notice was, when translated in the following terms:'Whereupon by this notice you are finally informed: On receipt of this notice, on 30-11-59 (being) the end of the month of your tenancy or it you want to consider (the month of tenancy) according to your rent note then [in) the month expiring on 15-11-1959 or on that day on which you consider the month of tenancy ends, you will vacate the aforesaid, premises which you hold as my client's tenant and hand over its possession to my client'. 2. The defendant failed to hand over posses...
In Re: Dave Bhagwarprasad Prabhuprasad and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-10-1961
Reported in: (1962)3GLR473
R.B. Mehta, J.1. This is a revision application against an order of dismissal op-the petitioners appeal by the learned Extra Assistant Judge Nadiad against an order of ejectment passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division Anand. The applicant petitioner was a tenant of a residential premises where incidentally he was also carrying on his business situate at Anand and belonging to the respondents-landlords. Since several years the applicant was holding this tenancy at a contractual rent of Rs. 75/-p.m. which he paid upto 27th July 1949. Thereafter the applicant ceased paying the rent of the premises. Sometimes in 1961 the applicant applied for fixation of standard rent. That application was decided on 31 March 1954 and the standard rent was fixed at Rs. 25/p.m. After the decision in this application for standard rent sometime in July 1954 the applicant is alleged to have offered the payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 25/p.m. which was the standard rent fixed but that offer was to ...
T.P. Kumaran Vs. R. Kothandaraman, Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-07-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Guj6; (1962)GLR856; (1963)ILLJ648Guj
Shelat, J.12. The learned Advocate General raised three preliminary contentions :(i) that this Court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari as against the Union of India;(2) that the order of the Commissioner merged in the final order of the President as the appellate authority, and, therefore, the order of the President rejecting the appeal of the petitioner and thereby confirming the order of the authority of the first instance was the only effective and outstanding order, and that being BO, no writ can be issued even against the Commissioner or against his order of removal,(3) that assuming that there was no merger, there would be two outstanding orders and this Court would not issue a writ against the Commissioner as that would be putting the Commissioner in an embarrassing situation, in that, he would have to commit a -breach of either the order of this Court or that of the appellate authority.Mr. Vakil, on the other hand, urged that there was no merger of the order of ...
State Vs. Diwanji Gardharji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-06-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Guj21; 1963CriLJ168; (1962)GLR882
Raju, J.1. This is an appeal against the orders of acquittals of respondents passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banaskantha. A preliminary objection is raised that this appeal is not maintainable in view of the fact that Criminal Appeal No. 645 of 1960 filed by the respondents against their convictions was already decided by a Division Bench of the High Court on and February, 1961. 2. The contention that by reason of the judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 645 of 1960 which was an appeal by the respondents against their conviction under section 304 Indian Penal Code, an appeal against the acquittal of the respondents under Section 302 Indian Penal Code is not competent is based mainly on sections 369, 430 and 421 Criminal Procedure Code. Section 430 Criminal Procedure Code provides as follows:'Judgments and orders passed by an Appellate Court upon appeal shall be final, except in the cases provided for in section 417 and Chapter XXXII.'It is, the...
Dahyabhai Nathubhai Vs. Suleman Isaji Dadabhaj and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-04-1961
Reported in: (1962)3GLR877
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The question arising on this Revision Application lies in a very narrow compass-and turns on the provisions of Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 and Section 16 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act 1869 The petitioner claims to be a tenant of opponent No. 1 in respect of certain lands situate in village Kolwad Taluka Kamrej District Surat. Sometime in January 1957 opponent No. 1 created a public trust in respect of the lands by a registered document and got the same registered under Section 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Charity Commissioner Bombay against the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner Baroda registering the trust created by opponent No. 1 as a public trust. The learned Charity Commissioner however dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to be heard in an inquiry under Section 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 merely because he was a protected...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›