Gujarat Court January 1962 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.
Dhagad Ambalal Bhailalbhai and anr. Vs. Bai Narmada, Wd/O. Parshottam ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-29-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR90
V.B. Raja, J.1. The facts giving rise to this civil revision application are as follows:The applicants filed a suit against the opponent-defendant in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Nadiad, for a declaration that the opponent had no right to recover actual possession of the suit house from the applicants under a decree which was obtained by the opponent in previous Regular Civil Suit No. 40 of 1951 in the Court of the Civil Judge. Junior Division at Nadiad, together with a perpetual injunction restraining the opponent from recovering possession of the suit house. The said suit was transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Nadiad, and was numbered as Civil Suit No. 187 of 1957. The learned Judge, however, dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was barred by res judicata and an appeal against the judgment was dismissed by the learned District Judge.2. In revision, it is contended that the learned Civil Judge has failed to exercise jurisdiction b...
The State Vs. Babaji Galaji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj222; 1963CriLJ262
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. This is a criminal revision application bythe State for the enhancement of the sentence passed onone Babaji Galaji, who was convicted by the learned JudicialMagistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad, under Section 304A, I. P. C.and sentenced to two months' R. I. The prosecutioncase was that the opponent was driving his car at a rashspeed and ran over the boy.* * * * *4. There is, therefore, no doubt that the conviction of the opponent under Section 304A, I.P.C. for causing the death of the boy is correct. As regards the sentence, the offence took place on the road between Three-Gates and Bhadra, which is a very busy locality in Ahmedabad, and on a Diwali day. Instead of taking extra precaution an such a day and on such a road, the opponent drove his car at a rash speed. The fact that both the wheels of his car ran over the boy indicates the high degree of negligence and rashness. In the circumstances, the sentence of two months R. I. is certainty grossly inadequate. But t...
Gyansing Prabhatsingh Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj275; 1963CriLJ519
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. The main point argued in this revision application is that two persons, viz., the driver of a motor-car and the driver of a motor-truck coming from different directions collided and they were tried in one tfial for offences under Sections. 279 and 304A I.P.C. and therefore the trial is bad. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in view of the provisions of Section 239 Cr. P. C. In such a case it cannot be said that there is one transaction in which different offences have been eommttted. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner are, therefore, set aside and a re-trial is ordered....
Ganchi Laxmichand Ambaram Vs. Tulsidas Madhavdas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj1; (1962)GLR1032
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This Revision Application raises an interesting question as to how far the principle of construelive res judicata applies in execution proceedings. Opponent No. obtained a decree against the applicant on 14th April 955 for a sum of Rs. 3,5007- in a suit far recovery of possession of immovable property and mesne profits. Opponent No. 1 thereafter filed an application to execute the decree against the applicant and en the application a notice under Order XXI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure was issued to the applicant. The applicant appeared in answer to the notice under Order XXI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil. Procedure and applied far adjournment from lime to time on the ground that he wanted to file a written statement and to contest the notice. The applications for adjournment were granted by the executing Court on three or four occasions but ultimately the executing Court refused to adjourn the proceedings any further and dismissed the last application for...
Shri Krishna Rangnath Mudholkar Vs. Gujarat University and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Guj88; (1962)0GLR204
Shelat, J. 1. This petition raises questions of considerable importance regarding the construction of certain provisions of the Gujarat University Act, 1949, the Impact of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution on those provisions and the competence of the State Legislature to enact them. The facts giving rise to this petition are few and for the most part undisputed and may be briefly stated.2. The petitioner is the father of Shrikant, at present studying in St. Xavier's College, which is affiliated to the University of Gujarat under the Gujarat University Act, 1949. Shrikant took his Secondary education in P. G. T. High School, Bombay, and M. S. N. High School, Ahmedabad, and passed his S. S. C. examination in June 1960. The medium of instruction as well as examination throughout the period of his Secondary education was Marathi. He took the S. S. C. Examination in Marathi and his mother-tongue is also Marathi. His aim was and continues to be, as stated in the petition, to gualify hi...
Jawahar Panalal Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ263; (1962)GLR1041
Miabhoy, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which an order, dated 29-11-1961, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dohad, in C.R. No. 2 of 1961, externing the petitioner from the revenue limits of Dohad Sub-Division and the surrounding talukas is being challenged. The petitioner is a resident of Devgadh Baria. It is an admitted fact that he has a radio shop at that place and that he is a platoon commandant in the Taluka Home Guard Unit and a member of the Taluka Prohibition Committee. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate issued a notice on 4th September, 1961, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why an order under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act 1951, should not be passed against him. The allegations which were made in this notice were, broadly speaking, four in number: (i) that the petitioner caused thefts to be committed and helped thieves in disposal of stolen property (ii) that he took undue liberty with 'the females of the place; (iii...
Kanchanlal Somalal Chokshi Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-1962
Reported in: (1963)GLR102
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. This Is a revision application by one Kan-chanlal Sornalal Choksi aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaira. The facts giving rise to this application are as follows:2. Some stolen property was alleged to have been sold by accused Rupabhai to one Jaswantial, who sold the same to one Kanchanlal, the present petitioner. Kancnan lal sold that property along with some of his gold ornaments for cash. Before the Police, he made a statement that he had sold the articles which he had received for Rs. 1514-0 along with some other ornaments and he produced Rs. 1514-0 before the Police, The learned trial Magistrate ordered this amount to be paid to the original complainant from whose possession the ornaments had been stolen. The petitioner then approached the Sessions court but the Sessions Court declined to interfere. Hence this revision application.3. A preliminary objection is taken and it is contended that this revision application does not li...
Thacker Chatrabhuj Gokuldas Vs. Thacker Khatau Motiram
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj185
ORDERV.B. Raju, J. 1. The learned District Judge of Kutch held in Regular Civil Appeal No. 72 of 1956 that the original suit was cot out of time and therefore set aside the decree of the trial Court which dismissed the suit as having been barred by limitation. In revision it is contended by the petitioner, who is the original defendant, that the appellate Judge committed a gross irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction by holding that the suit was in time.2. Therefore, the question is one of limitation and the following facts have to be borne in mind. The cause of action arose in Kutch State. The Khata in question has been executed in Kutch State on 14-4-48. The Kutch State was integrated in the Union of India and came to be classified as a C Class State. By Notification No. I27(C)-J,dated 31st July, 1949, the Government of India applied the Indian Limitation Act to Kutch and the Notification was styled as 'the Kutch Application of Laws Order, 1949'. By the said order, the Indi...
Kanji Lalji Kanbi and ors Vs. Harji Devraj Kanbi and ors
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-15-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR926
V.B. Raju, J.1. This application is by the defendants. The opponents filed Civil Suit No. 17 of 1962 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division Bhuj to recover Rs. 24 270 nP. In the written statement it is contended that various sub-contracts were given by the defendants to the plaintiffs and it was agreed between the parties that the plaintiff's should not encash a certain cheque issued to them till they completed the subcontract works and that in case the sub-contracts remained unfinished the defendants would be entitled to get the work done at the cost of the plaintiffs and deduct the amount of the cheque from the cost that may be incurred by the defendants. The amount claimed by the plaintiffs included Rs. 10 600 by way of a cheque. In the written statement the defendants contended that as a result of the plaintiffs not completing the work entrusted to them as sub-contractors various amounts were due to them by way of damages. Therefore out the claim of Rs. 24 0 and odd although i...
Shah Mapatlal Mulchand, a Firm Vs. Patel Jivabhai Lallubhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-12-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR14
V.B. Raju, J.1. The only print urged in this civil revision petition is that the Civil Judge Junior Division Chanasma committed a material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction in deciding a claim petition under Order 21 Rule 58 Civil Pro. Code objecting to the attachment of certain property in execution of a decree obtained by the petitioner after the sale had been held although the claim petition had been made before the sale took place. The claim petition was filed on 3-9-58. On the same date the learned Judge ordered a notice to issue to the opponent to show cause why the property attached should not be sold. Subsequently on 11 the claim petition under Order 21 Rule 58 was decided. It is therefore contended that under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P. Code the application should not have been decided after the sale had been held although the sale had not been confirmed on the date of the decision of the claim petition. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on Ningauda v. Gir...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »