Gujarat Court October 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.
Fali Phirojshah Contractor Vs. Phirojshah Pestonji Contractor
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-15-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj207; (1963)GLR836
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. In a suit by the opponent for a declaration that Government Securities worth Rs. 2,00,000/- and odd, standing in the joint names of the opponent and the petitioner were of his sole ownership and that he alone had a right to operate the account of the securities and for a consequential Injunction, the relief sought was valued at Rs. 99/-. The value for purposes of jurisdiction was also taken as Rs. 99/-, and the suit was filed in the Court of the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Baroda. An objection was taken on the ground of jurisdiction and it was contended that the value for the purposes of, jurisdiction should be Rs. 2,00,000/- and odd and that the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Baroda, had no jurisdiction.2. The learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Baroda, observed that the suit admittedly fell under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act of 1870. He also observed that the Court has got powers to inquire Into the matter and r...
Shree Madansinhji Saheb of Kutch Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj175; (1963)GLR609
ORDERV.B. Raju, J. 1. In a Land Acquisition Case a reference was made by the Collector to the District Court at Bhuj. The learned District Judge rejected the reference holding that it was barred by time and that that was not a valid reference. He, therefore, refused to hear the reference and hence this revision application. It is contended by-the learned counsel for the applicant that once a reference is made by a Collector under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Court, the District Court has no-jurisdiction to decide whether the reference is within limitation or whether the reference was in conformity with the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.2. In support of this contention, the learned counsal for the applicant relies on Hari Krishan v. State of pepsu; , Venkateswaraswami v. Sub-Collector, Pezwada, AIR 1943 Mad 327, Secretary of State v. Bhag-wan Prasao : AIR1929All769 , and Secretary of State v. Bhagwan Prasad : AIR1932All597 . But the learn...
H.H. Maharao Shree Madansinhji Saheb Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR609
V.B. Raju, J.1. In a Land Acquisition Case a reference was made by the Collector to the District Court at Bhuj The learned District Judge rejected the reference holding that it was barred by time and that that was not a valid reference. He therefore refused to hear the reference and hence this revision application. It is contended by the Learned Counsel for the applicant that once a reference is made by a Collector under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Court the District Court has no jurisdiction to decide whether the reference is within limitation or whether the reference was in conformity with the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.In support of this contention the Learned Counsel for the applicant relies on Hari Krishan v. State of Pepsu Sri Venkateswaraswami v. Sub-Collector Bezwada A.I.R. 1943 Madras 327 Secretary of State v. Bhagwan Prasad I.L.R. 52 Allahabad 96 Secretary of State v. Bhagwan Prasad : AIR1929All769 and Secretary of State v....
State of Gujarat Vs. Shyamlal Mohanlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj178; 1963CriLJ135; (1963)0GLR638
ORDERV.B. Raju, J. 1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Nadiad recommending that the order passed by the trial Court on an application of the Police Prosecutor of Umreth for issuing a summons to an accused person to produce certain document;, be set aside. The Police Prosecutor, Umreth, had requested the trial Magistrate to direct an accused person who was accused in a case under the Bombay Money Lenders Act to produce certain account books which he was alleged to be in possession of and which were likely to be. used by the prosecution to prove its case. The learned trial Magistrate rejected this application. But the learned Sessions Judge, before whom the State went in revision, was of the view that the accused can be compelled to produce account books in his possession if they do not contain any personal statement of the accused. He was of the view that the provisions contained in Clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution did not apply. Therefore, he made a refe...
Bai Manchha Widow of Nathubhai Bhagwanji and ors. Vs. Sardar Sajjadana ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj168; (1963)GLR545
Miabhoy, J. 1. These two appeals arise from two decrees passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), surat, on 30th of April 1957 in Special Jurisdiction Suit No. 26 or 1951 and Regular Civil Suit No. 1129 of 1952, by which the learned Judge dismissed the suits. We may briefly mention the facts which gave rise to the two suits. There is no dispute that the respondent Sardar Sajjadanashin Saiyed Mahomed Bakar-el-Edrus, who is the common respondent in both the appeals, is the inamdar of the village Orma situated in the district of Surat, with which village we are concerned in these two appeals. There is also no dispute that the plaintiffs or their predecessors were, at all material times, the cultivators of various fields in village. Originally, the plaint which was presented in Special Civil Suit No. 26 of 1951 was signed by the plaintiffs thereof and the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff of the second suit No. 1129 of 1952. However, the latter died before the presentation o...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Girdharlal Harivallabhadas Mills Co. Lt ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-03-1962
Reported in: (1963)0GLR1; [1964]51ITR693(Guj)
K.T. Desai, C.J. 1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee in this case is Girdharlal Harivallabhadas Mills Co. Ltd. The assessment proceedings relate to the assessment year 1957-58. The business profit for the relevant previous year of the assessee-company was determined at Rs. 7,94,272. At against the amount of this profit, depreciation and development rebate amounting to Rs. 1,30,529 was set off, leaving the income for the previous year from business at Rs. 6,63,743. The assessee had carried forward the loss of Rs. 4,10,095 from the preceding years. After giving a set-off for this amount, the business income was reduced to Rs. 2,44,648. The assessee had an unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 5,62,317 in respect of the preceding years. The Income-tax Officer set off the unabsorbed depreciation of the preceding years to the extent of Rs. 2,44,648, leaving a balance of Rs. 3,17,669 as the unabsorbed depreciation for carry forward purposes. T...
Ahmedmiyan Bhaimiya and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-03-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj159; 1963CriLJ16; (1963)0GLR543
Divan, J.1. In the course of the investigation, according to-the prosecution, in consequence of a statement made by-accused No. 1, the gun, Muddamal, Article 7 was discovered. Ranch Motilal Mohanlal has proved the Panchnama and in the Panchnama it has been mentioned as follows:--When the panchas went to the Police Station Koli Jaga Mohan (accused No. 1) was present and accused No. 1 stated that he had concealed the gun behind the bushes on-the western Shedha (boundary) of his field named Khariwadsituated in the Sim of village Kunvarrad and that he was willing to produce it if anybody accompanied him., thereafter accused No. 1 Is alleged to have taken the police party and 'panchas in the jeep car to the outskirts of Kunvarad and there he is alleged to have removed some branches and leaves and produced a gun. It has been brought out in the evidence of P. S. I. Patel that though, the accused No. I had been arrested on June 14, 1961, it was not till June 18 that accused No. 1 made the stat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›