Gujarat Court July 1961 Judgments
Muljibhai and Shivabhai a Registered Firm Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-31-1961
Reported in: (1962)3GLR762
V.B. Raja, J.1. This is a first appeal by the original plaintiff Messrs. Muljibhai and Snivabhai a registered firm at Anand against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge Senior Division Nadiad in Special Civil Suit No. 16 of 1956. For convenience the appellant will be hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff. The respondent who is the original defendant is the Union of India New Delhi. The facts of this appeal may be briefly stated as follows:2. The plaintiff is a licensee under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and is a dealer in tobacco. The plaintiff cleared from the warehouse at Anand un-manufactured tobacco weighing 95 324 1 on payment of duty amounting to Rs. 47 671 at the rate of Re. 0-8-0 per 1b. on various dates during the period from 1-3-51 to 27-4-51. According to Section 7(2) of the Finance Act 1951 this tobacco was subject to duty at Re.10-14-0 per 1b. and the differential duty at 0-6-0 per 1b. amounting to Rs. 35 299 was demanded on 13-8-51. Against this demand an amount ...
Tag this Judgment!Modi Nathubhai Motilal and ors. Vs. Chhotubhai Manibhai Desai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-27-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj68; (1962)0GLR418
Raju,. J. 1. This is a first appeal by the original defendants Nos. 1 to 5 against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Broach in special jurisdiction Suit No. 11 of 1955. The respondent Chhotubhai who was the origin. 1 plaintiff had filed the suit to recover Rs. 52,720/-with costs and running interest at 6 per cent from defendant No. 1 personally and from the joint Hindu family properties and other properties of defendants Nos. 3 to 5. The defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are the sons of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 5 is the wife of defendant No. 1. It was alleged in the plaint that defendant No. 1 as manager of the Joint Hindu family of the defendant had appointed the plaintiff as Paka Adatia for the purpose of making purchases of timber for defendant No. 1 and sending the same to him. It was also alleged that in respect of these transactions there was a settlement of accounts between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 on 16-8-1952 when it was agreed that the balanc...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Mena W/O Patel Revabhai Ranchhodbhai Vs. Patel Vithalbhai Shambhub ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-27-1961
Reported in: (1962)3GLR104
R.B. Mehta, J.1. This is a civil revision application against an order passed by the learned second Extra Assistant Judge Mehsana who set aside an order passed by the Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Vijapur acting as a Court under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act).2. The matter arises this way. One Thakore Harisinghji Kalaji a minor Through his guardian and mother Rajiba and one Rupaji Becharji jointly mortgaged a field being Survey No. 128 in Haripura village in Vijapur Taluka in Mehsana District in favour of the present petitioners predecessors in the year 1898 for a sum of Rs. 106/-. Thereafter a fresh mortgage was created by making up the accounts of the first mortgage transaction with a further advance of an amount of Rs. 25/- in favour of the predecessors of the present petitioners who are the successorsin-title of the original mortgagees on 30th July 1912. It appears that the mortgagors transferred their interest i.e., the equity...
Tag this Judgment!Kaderbhai Peerbhai Vs. Husenabu Chandbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-24-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj59; (1962)0GLR71
ORDERR.B. Mehta, J. 1. The opponent-plaintiff filed a suit, being Suit No. 26/1957, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Divison, Dhokla, for possession of certain immoveable property, for setting aside a sale-deed and for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit property and for an injunction against the defendant Issues were framed. and the case was fixed for taking evidence on 4th September 1957, on which date the plaintiff gave an application for an amendment of the plaint. This amendment became necessary as in the plaint as originally filed, there was no prayer for possession. By the amendment the plaintiff added a prayer for possession. The plaint was arranged by reason of the order made by the Court allowing the application for amendment. For the payment or the additional court-fee stamps of Rs. 193-12-0 time was given to the plaintiff till 28th April 1958. On, the 28th April 1958, both the plaintiff and her Advocate were absent and the Court passed the following or...
Tag this Judgment!Abbasali Yusufali Vs. Fazalali Isufali
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-24-1961
Reported in: (1962)3GLR676
R.B. Mehta, J.1. This is a revision application against an order passed by the learned District Judge Broach dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against an order made by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division Jhagadia in execution proceedings against the present petitioner who was original defendant No. 5 in the suit in which the relevant decree was passed. This revision application raises a question under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts leading to this application are this way.2. The opponent-plaintiff filed a Darkhast No. 7/1954 in the Court of the Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Jhagadia for execution of a decree dated 3rd December 1948 which was passed in his favour against several defendants one of whom was the present petitioner (defendant No.5). The decretal amount is Rs. 1952-13-2. The defence taken by the present petitioner in the said Darkhast was that the relevant debt was extinguished as no application was made under ...
Tag this Judgment!Ratilal Sakarlal and anr. Vs. Gandabhai Muljibhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj61; (1962)0GLR40
ORDERR.B. Mehta, J. 1. This is a civil revision application against an order passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Surat, by which the learned Assistant Judge reversed the decree of the trial Court and sent thecase back for re-trial. 2. The matter arises this way; The original suit was filed by the two plaintiffs who were the owners o Survey No. 428, which was within the jurisdiction of Surat Borough Municipality. This land was given to the defendant and his predecessors on a yearly lease by the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-title. The plaintiffs sought to terminate the lease by a notice, dated 5th July 1955. As the tenants did not vacate the land, they filed an ejectment suit, also claiming mesne profits, municipal tax and revenue assessment. The defendant's defence was that he was a protected tenant under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, thereinafter referred to as 'the Act'); that the notice was bad and that he was not bound to pay the municipal tax and r...
Tag this Judgment!Jagmohandas Jagjivandas Mody Vs. State of Bombay (Now Gujarat State)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-20-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj197; (1962)IILLJ507Guj
Raju, J. 1. This is a first appeal by the original plaintiff J. J. Mody, who was appointed is Regional Publicity Officer on 8-11-1949. He was dismissed from service on 6-12-1950 after having been suspended from service earlier, and a departmental inquiry was held into the allegations that he had made some defamatory aspersions against some Ministers of the Government of the Bombay State. This order cf dismissal was, however, set aside in Civil Suit No. 10 of 1952 filed by the appellant. After the decision of that suit the Government passed an order on 26-5-54 continuing his suspension from 6-12-1950 and gave a second notice to the appellant to show cause why he should not be removed from service. On 20-12-1954, the Government passed an order dismissing the appellant from service. The present suit was thereupon filed by the appellant on 30-9-1955 for a declaration that he is not guilty of any misconduct, that tho second order of suspension dated 26-5-1954, and the second order of dismis...
Tag this Judgment!Jagmohandas Jagjivandas Mody Vs. State of Bombay (Now the Gujarat Stat ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-20-1961
Reported in: (1962)0GLR492
Raju, J.1. This is a first appeal by the original plaintiff J. J. Mody who was appointed as regional publicity officer on 8 November, 1949. He was dismissed from service on 6 December, 1950 after having been suspended from service earlier, and a departmental inquiry was held into the allegations that he had made some defamatory aspersions against some Ministers of the Government of the Bombay State. This order of dismissal was, however, set aside in Civil Suit No. 10 of 1952 filed by the appellant. After the decision of that suit, the Government passed an order on 26 May, 1954 continuing his suspension from 6 December, 1950 and gave second notice to the appellant to show cause why he should not be removed from service. On 29 December, 1954, the Government passed an order dismissing the appellant from service. The present suit was thereupon filed by the appellant on 30 September, 1955 for a declaration that he is not guilty of any misconduct, that the second order of suspension dated 26...
Tag this Judgment!Ramji Shamji Bhatt Vs. Collector, Madhya Saurashtra, Rajkot
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-18-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj122; (1962)0GLR123
K.T. Desai, C.J. 1. The Inspector General of Registration Gujarat State, as the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, has made this Reference, purporting to do so under Section 54(1) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. He has also submitted the case to use his own words, 'for instructions of the High Court'. The facts leading to the Reference briefly stated are as under. 2. A special power-of-attorney was executed on the 1st day of January 1959 at Kassala in Sudan by one Jatashanker Shivshanker in favour of Ramjee Samjee Bhatt of Rajkot. Under the power-of-attorney, he authorised Ramjee Samjee Bhatt to sell his immovable property at Rajkot to one Patel Zinabhai Bhavaubhai of Rajkot for Rs. 9,100/- and to receive the said amount on his behalf. He further authorised Ramjee Samjee Bhatt to sign and execute the necessary instrument and to apply to the Registrar or any Government Department at Rajkot to register the property in the name of the buyer. This document did not bear any stamp, The docu...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Bava Bhadya and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-18-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ537; (1962)GLR522
Shelat, J.1. (After Stating the facts The charge-sheet cited besides Sukha Rayla and Kali, 8 other as witnesses. The charge-sheet also stated that summons should be issued by the Court to ensure the presence of the complainant and the witnesses. Before the charge was framed, notices were issued by the Court on the 18th June I960 calling upon the two accused to remain present. A vas arrested, w.s prdanced before the Court, whereas accused No. 2 remained present with not surety. The case was then adjourned to the 22nd June 1960, when copies of the papers relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to the two accused and receipts t in respect of those copies were obtained from them. The ase was then adjourned to the 29th of June i960. On the 29th June when the case was called out, both the accused and the Police Prosecutor were present. The learned Magistrate considered the investigation papers and after hearing the Police Prosecutor, framed a charge as aforesaid. He also recorded the s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »