Gujarat Court February 1962 Judgments
Shah Kantilal Manilal and anr. Vs. Kothari Gopaldas Bapabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj143; (1963)GLR152
ORDERV.B. Raju, J. 1. The second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmedabad, decreed Civil Suit No. 343 of 1957 by the landlord for possession of the premises leased to the tenant on the ground that the tenant had built a house for himself after coming into operation of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act, and also on the ground that the tenant had sub-let the premises. The suit had been filed both against the tenant as well as against the alleged sub-tenant. In appeal, the appellate Court confirmed the decree for possession on the first ground but as regards the second ground relating to the alleged sub-tenancy,it gave no finding, as it felt that it was not necessary in view of the fact that the appellate Court was confirming the decree of the first Court on the first ground.2. In revision, the tenant and the alleged subtenant contended that the appellate Court should have given a finding regarding the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Dhuli W/O. Sutar Shivabhai Purshottam Vs. Patel Motibhai Revandas ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-1962
Reported in: (1962)4GLR143
V.B. Raju, J.1. In the proceedings under Section 4 of the B.A.D.R. Act for the adjustment of debts the creditors filed an appeal against an order under Section 17 holding that the applicant was a debtor. After an award they filed another appeal and in that award the learned appellate Judge held that the finding that the applicant was a debtor was erroneous and the appellate Court therefore set aside the award ordering the return of the property to the debtor.2. In revision it is contended that an appeal against the order passed under Section 17 of the B.A.D.R. Act having been filed in the appellate Court it was not open to the appellate Court to deal with that question in the appeal against the award. The appellate Judge holding that the transaction was a mortgage debt set aside the award on the ground that the applicant had not proved that he was a debtor. Under the B.A.D.B. Act order can be passed under various sections and some of them are appealable. Section 43 of the B.A.D.R. Act ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bombay (Now Gujarat) Vs. Natvarsingh Revabhai Zala
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-1962
Reported in: (1963)GLR16; (1963)IILLJ509Guj
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that the order of the Executive Engineer terminating his service as a clerk was null and void and that he continued in the service of the Government. The facts giving rise to this litigation may be briefly stated as follows. The plaintiff was appointed as a temporary clerk on the work-charged establishment on 24 November, 1948. The plaintiff was thereafter by an order of the Executive Engineer, bearing No. A/3968 of 1950 and dated 18 March, 1949, promoted as a clerk on officiating permanent establishment and was retained in the same sub division in which he was working. On 12 May, 1952 the plaintiff was working. On 12 May, 1952 the plaintiff was called upon to give explanation in connexion with certain charges made against him and he submitted his explanation on 10 June, 1952. This explanation was, according to the plaintiff, accepted by the authorities and the chapter was closed. The plaintiff was ther...
Tag this Judgment!Vali Mahomed Adam and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR138
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The accused in this case were charge-sheeted in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Broach for offence under Sections 447, 426 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused of the offence under Sections 447 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 25/or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence was passed for the offence under Section 426 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the offence under Section 504 was concerned the accused were acquitted of that offence. The accused being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed against them filed a Revision Application against the same in the Court of the Sessions Judge Broach. The Revision Application was filed more than thirty days after the date of the order of conviction and sentence even after excluding the time required fo...
Tag this Judgment!Mehr Bhima Viram Vs. Mehr Jetha Giga and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR135
V.B. Raju, J.1. This civil revision application raises some difficult questions under the S.A.D.R. Act, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act, and one of them is whether when a mortgage is executed by four persons one of them alone can file an application for the adjustment of debts, in a case where the other three mortgagors are also debtors. The other point raised in this application is that the mortgage was executed on 8-9-54 subsequent to the date on which the Act came into force, namely on 5-8-54 and that therefore an application for the adjustment of such debts cannot be made. The last point urged is that the four mortgagors are members of a joint Hindu family and therefore one of them alone cannot file this application for the adjustment of debts of the joint Hindu family. These three questions will be dealt with seriatim.Under Section 4(1) of the Act any debtor ordinarily residing in any local area for which a Board has been constituted under Section 5 of the Act or ...
Tag this Judgment!Thakordas Parbhudas and anr. Vs. Manilal Kunverji Desai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR93
V.B. Raju, J.1. In a suit under the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act filed by the applicants-landlords against the tenant who was in occupation of the first and second floors of the premises the 3rd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Surat decreed the plaintiffs suit for possession of the first floor on the ground that the plaintiffs-landlords bona fide required the first floor for their residence. In appeal the appellate Judge took into consideration the fact that the plaintiffs-landlords had obtained a decree for possession against another tenant in respect of the ground floor and having this factor in view he decreed that the plaintiffs should recover possession of the suit premises namely the first floor and the second floor from the defendant alter the ground floor is vacated by the other tenant arid after it is made available to the defendant. This decree of the appellate Court is now challenged in revisio...
Tag this Judgment!Valibhai Omarji Vs. the State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj145; 1963CriLJ14; (1963)0GLR5
Shelat, J. 1-17. * * * *18. Mr. Barot contended that the learned trial Judge was in error in admitting the Panchnama Ex. 7 in evidence and in relying upon it and contended that the Panchnama Ex. 7 was inadmissible and was hit by the provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Naginlal Nandlal v. State of Gujarat, 1961-2 Guj LR 664. Mr. Barot in particular relied upon a passage in that decision occurring at page 673 of the report where it has been stated :'For similar reasons, a Panchnama made by the police cannot be regarded as a statement made by one Panch witness to another. It can be regarded as a statement made by the Panch witness to the police officer and if so, it would be-hit by Section 162 Cri. Pro. Code. If the Panchnama was not made during the course of the investigation, then it would not be hit by Section, 162 Cri. Pro. Code. But we are not dealing with such a Pa...
Tag this Judgment!Kesharibhai Jesingbhai Vs. Bai Lilavati and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj119; (1963)GLR59
ORDERP.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This application to condone delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act arises from a suit filed by the appellant against the respondents in the Court of the Third Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedabad, on 19th March 1952. The appellant claimed relief in respect of three categories of properties. The first category consisted of properties which according to the appellant belonged to his father Jesingbhai at the time of his death and were bequeathed by Jesingbhai to the appellant and his brother Jagabhai -- being the only two sons of Jesingbhai -- by a will. These properties, alleged the appellant, came into the hands of Jagabhai on the death of Jesingbhai and the appellant was entitled to one-half share in these properties. The second category comprised certain other properties which were inherited by the appellant and Jagabhai from their grandmother Bai Mena in equal shares and which on the death of Jesingbhai again came into the h...
Tag this Judgment!Jamadar Suleman Bachumiya Vs. Mahavir MathadIn and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR131
V.B. Raja, J.1. This is a civil revision application. The applicant filed Suit No. 50/ 58 before the Mamlatdar of Baroda under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act for a permanent injunction restraining the opponents from causing obstructions to the possession of the suit lands. Pending the suit an interim injunction was granted on 8-12-58 and an application for vacating the interim injunction was also dismissed. The learned Mamlatdar also ordered that the contention of the opponents that they were tenants of the suit lands should be decided by the tenancy Court and that the suit under the Mamlatdars Courts Act should be kept pending till the decision by the tenancy Court. The opponents went in revision to the Prant Officer Baroda under Section 23 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act. The learned Prant Officer came to the conclusion that the possession was with the original defendants to the suit. He therefore set aside the order of the Mamlatdar granting an interim injunction. Although in t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›