Gujarat Court December 1961 Judgments
Panchal Mohanlal Ishwardas Vs. Maheshwari Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-13-1961
Reported in: (1962)3GLR574
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This Revision Application arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant to recover possession of certain premises situate on Dudheshwar Road Ahmedabad. The premises consist of a structure known as Chhagan Kishor Iron Factory. It appears that from 1931 the defendant was in possession of the premises as a tenant of the plaintiffs. A deed of lease was executed by the between the plaintiffs and the defendant on 28 the November 1942 whereby a lease of the premises was granted by the plaintiffs to be defendant for a period of five years from 1st February 1942 at the rent and on the terms and conditions contained in the deed of lease. There was some dispute between the parties as to whether the plaintiffs were the lessors under the deed of lease or whether the lessors were Dhirajlal Khushaldas and Company Agents of the plaintiffs. I shall discuss this aspect of the matter later but for the purpose of the present narration I shall proceed on the basis t...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalkhanji Jiwankhanji Vs. Expenditure Tax Officer, Ward C, Income-ta ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Guj98; (1962)GLR479
Desai, C.J.1. The petitioner in this case is the Chief of Bajana. Bajana was a fourth class State situate in Saurashtra. On 15th August, 1947, the Indian Independence Act of 1947, was passed and the Dominion of India was constituted. After the constitution of the Dominion of India, an Instrument of Accession was executed by the Chief of Bajana, acceding to the Dominion of India and transferring to the Dominion of India rights in respect of certain matters including defence, external affairs and communications. On or about 23rd January, 1948, the Rulers of Kathiawar States, including the Chief of Bajana, entered into a Covenant for the formation of the United State of Kathiawar. Article X of the Covenant provides as under:'(i) The Ruler of each Covenanting State shall be entitled to receive annually from the revenues of the United State for his privy purse, the amount specified against that Covenanting State in Schedule I.x x x'The State of Bajana appears in Part B of Schedule I under i...
Tag this Judgment!Malek Shri Kamalkhanji Jiwankhanji Vs. Expenditure Tax Officer and anr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-1961
Reported in: (1962)3GLR479
K.T. Desai, C.J.1. The petitioner in this case is the Chief of Bajana. Bajana was a fourth class State situate in Saurashtra. On 15th August 1947 the Indian Independence Act of 1947 was passed and the Dominion of India was constituted. After the Constitution of the Dominion of India an Instrument of Accession was executed by the Chief of Bajana acceding to the Dominion of India and transferring to the Dominion of India rights in respect of certain matters including defence external affairs and communications. On or about 23rd January 1948 the Rulers of Kathiawar States including the Chief of Bajana entered into a Covenant for the formation of the United State of Kathiawar. Article X of the Covenant provides as under:(1) The Ruler of each Covenanting State shall be entitled to receive annually from the revenue of the United State for his privy purse the amount specified against that Covenanting State in Schedule I. xxx xxx xxxThe State of Bajana appears in Part B of Schedule I under ite...
Tag this Judgment!Madhaji Lakhiram Vs. Mashrubhai Mahadevbhai Rabari and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj235; (1962)0GLR438
Miabhoy, J.1. Two questions arise for decision by this Full Bench. The first is whether a decision given by an appellate authority under Sub-section (5) of Section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (hereafter called the 'Act') is or is not subject to revision under Section 76 of the Act by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The second is whether the total income of the petitioner for disposing of his application for an exemption certificate, made under Sub-section (2) of Section 88C of the Act, is to be computed, under the circumstances of the case from the year beginning from 1st April 1956 and ending with 31st March 1957, or the year beginning from 1st September 1958 and ending with 31st August 1959.2. At first it will be convenient to mention a few facts which led up to the writ petition in which the questions arise for decision. Petitioner Madhaji Lakhiram is the owner of a land, bearing survey No. 610, admeasuring 9 acres 26 gunthas, situated in the village Na...
Tag this Judgment!Pinjare Karimbhai Dedubhai Vs. Shukla Hariprasad Manishankar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-1961
Reported in: (1962)3GLR529
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This application for revision arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovering possession of a shop together with arrears of rent in the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division Sidhpur. In order to appreciate the contentions which have been urged before me in this Revision Application it is necessary to set out briefly the facts giving rise to this litigation. The facts are few and for the most part undisputed and may be briefly stated as follows:2. The plaintiff is the owner of a shop situate on the ground-floor of a building in Sidhpur. The defendant was at all material times a tenant of the plaintiff in respect of the shop. The contractual rent of the shop was Rs. 8/per month. The defendant paid the rent of the shop at The contractual rate of Rs. 8/per month up to 4th January 1954 and thereafter failed and neglected to pay any rent to the plaintiff. The plaintiff gave notice to the defendant on 4th February 1956 calling upon the d...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Gopichand Hardasmal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-01-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Guj224; 1963CriLJ264; (1963)0GLR429
ORDERP.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This Criminal Reference raises a short question regarding the construction of Section 84 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1839. The accused who is a driver of an auto-rickshaw was charged for offences punishable under Sees. 84 snd 86 read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad. The charge against the accused for the offence under Section 84 read with Section 112 was on the allegation that he allowed the auto-rickshaw to remain stationary in a public place without there being in the driver's seat any person duly licensed to drive tne auto-rickshaw. The charge under Section 86 read with Section 112 was for not showing the licence on demand Out I am not concerned with that charge since the accused was acquitted of the same. Before the learned Magistrate theprosecution led evidence to show that at 11.00 A.M. on 24th December 1960, the auto-rickshaw of the accused was lying unattended at the Railwa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›