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.
Union of India (Uoi) Owning Western Railway, Bombay Vs. Dayabhai Laxma ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-11-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Guj266
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. In Small Cause case No. 348 of 1958, a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff firm, a consignee of goods, against the Union of India Owning the Western Railway for damages in respect of deterioration of goods booked Bilimora to Rajkot. The consignor did not file the suit, but the consignee, in whose name the railway receipt was prepared, filed a suit fr damages. Admittedly, damage was caused to the goods.2. The only point urged in revision is that the lower Court has erred in passing a decree in favour of a bare consignee and that as the suit was not filed by the consignor who was a party to the contract of consignment, the suit should have been dismissed, as it was a suit filed by a bare consignee against the Railway. The contention is well founded. This is a case of bailment of goods to the Railway. The word 'bailment' is thus defined in Section 148 of the Indian Contract Act :-'A 'bailment' is the delivery of goods by one person to another for some purpose...
Gulabchand Makanji Vs. Motapondha Vibhag Tenants' Co-operative, Agricu ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-10-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Guj296; (1962)0GLR991
ORDERV.B. Raju, J. 1. This civil revision application arises out of an order passed in Civil Suit no. 11 of 1957 holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, which was for the recovery of Rs. 2733/- being the rent of 1956-57 in respect of Survey No. 216. The Suit was filed by the landlord against the tenant and in the alternative in the plaint it was stated that the plaintiff was claiming the amount also by way of compensation. The learned judge held that under section 70 (me) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, it was only for the Mamlatdar to direct the payment of rent determined under the Act or the arrears thereof and it was also for the Mamlatdar to determine what rent was payable, The view that in view of clause (me) of section 70 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to determine the rent payable or to direct the payment of rent payable is quite correct. But it is contended by the learned co...
The Rajkot Borough Municipality Vs. Hakim Mahetabali Imamuddin
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-10-1962
Reported in: (1962)3GLR1055
V.B. Raja, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the District Judge Rajkot appointing Panchas under Section 198 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act on an application made by the opponent who alleged that as a result of the digging of a drain by the Municipality his house had collapsed. Section 128 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act 1925 which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act gives powers to a Municipality to make and repair drains. Sub-section (3) of Section 128 of the Act provides as under:In the exercise of any power under this section no unnecessary damage shall be done, and compensation which shall in case of dispute be ascertained and determined in the manner provided in Section 198 shall be paid by the municipality to any person who sustains damage by the exercise of such power. 2. Section 198 of the Act provides that save as expressly provided in Section 198 if an agreement is not arrived at with respect to any compensation or damages which by the Act ...
The Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Bapulal Hariprasad and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-09-1962
Reported in: (1962)3GLR987
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18 September 1959 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Baroda in Darkhast No. 636 of 1958 by which the learned Judge dismissed an application of the petitioner the Union of India for raising an attachment levied by the learned Judge on parts of two money order amounts remitted by the opponent No. 3 the trustees of the Provident Fund of the staff of Shree Ambica Mills Ltd. (No. 3) to the opponent No 2 Lalkhan Husainkhan. The opponent No. 1 obtained a decree in a small cause suit against opponent No. 2 and filed Darkhast No. 636 of 1958 for recovery of the decretal amount. The opponent No. 2 was a mill hand working in Shree Ambica Mills Ltd. and the trustees of the provident fund of the staff of those Mills held an amount of Rs. 1 0 for the benefit of the opponent No. 2. It appears that after opponent No. 2 was discharged the trustees closed the account of the opponent No. 2 and sent an amount of Rs. 1 0 to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›