Gujarat Court March 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.
The Nadiad Borough Municipality Vs. the Nadiad Electric Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-28-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Guj30; (1964)0GLR82
P.N. Bhagwati, J. 1. This appeal raises a short but interesting question relating to the construction of Section 22A of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The question, is one of considerable importance and consequence and is certainly not free from difficulty. The task of determination has, however, been rendered considerably easier by the very able assistance received by me from the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the parties and having regard to the full and detailed arguments which have been advanced before me on both sides. I think it right and proper that I should give in some detail my reasons for the conclusion which I have reached on this rather difficult question of construction. The facts giving rise to this appeal are few and for the most part undisputed and may be briefly stated as follows.2. The plaintiff is a Municipality for the Municipal Borough of Nadiad established under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. The defendant has been granted a licence to suppl...
Parshotam Parbhudas Vs. Bai Moti Wife of Parshotam Parbhudas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-27-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj30; (1963)GLR204
V.B. Raju, J.1. The applicant filed an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis. The suit was for declaration that he was the sole owner of two fields and a bungalow and for possession of the bungalow and for the recovery of rent. He was held not to be a pauper, and his application for permission to sue in forma pauperis was rejected by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmedabad, and hence this revision application.2. The learned Judge held that the two suit fields were in the possession of the applicant. While considering the means of the applicant, he considered these two fields and held that it was not proved that the applicant is a pauper or that he has no sufficient means to pay the court-fees for the suit. Secondly he also held that in the previous litigation between the same parties, namely Civil Suit No. 1328/58 of the Court of the 6th Joint Civil, Judge, Junior Division, Ahmedabad, it was decided that the wife of the applicant was the sole owner and that ...
Vadilal Malukchand and anr. Vs. Ugarchand Pitambardas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR305
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is a civil revision application arising out of Small Cause Suit No. 2923 of 1957 filed in the Court of the Additional Judge Small Causes Ahmedabad by the opponent in respect of a money claim arising out of a document executed at Nakhatrana a village in Kutch. The suit was against two persons namely defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The document was executed by defendant No. 2 who was then trading in the name of his minor son defendant No. 1. The learned Small Causes Court Judge held that the Ahmedabad Court had jurisdiction because the creditor was residing at Ahmedabad and it was the duty of the debtors to seek the creditor. As regards defendant No. 1 he held that defendant No. 1 was liable only to the extent of his share in the joint family property and he was not personally liable because the document was executed by defendant No. 2 as a person trading in the name of his minor son As regards defendant No. 2 he made him liable to the full extent of Rs. 1099/-.2. In revisi...
Chran Misri Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-23-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ666; (1963)4GLR304
V.B. Raju, J.1. In this case, the appellant was convicted under Section 12(a) read with Section 4 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act for having accepted Re, 1/- trom another person as a bet on American Cotton Futures, the complainant P.S.I, deposed that one person came and gave a currency note of rupee one to the accused for 1000 as a bet of '8 Teji'. When the prosecution case is that money was received by the accused as a bet, it is necessary to prove that money was received and how the receipt of money amounts to a bet. The P.S.I, should have deposed exactly what were the words which passed between the bettor and the appellant. Whether the object in giving a one rupee note to the appellant was by way of a bet is not a matter of inference. It is not open to a prosecution witness to draw his own inference, it is, however, open to a prosecution witness to explain the special or peculiar words, if any, used by a bettor in order to lay a bet. For instance, if a bettor used the expre...
Pujari Ravigar Kubergar and ors. Vs. Shukla Pranshanker Keshanker
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-23-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR428
V.B. Raju, J.1. In this matter a single Judge of the Gujarat High Court passed an interim stay of the execution of a decree for possession, but the matter was ultimately disposed of by the Registrar, who passed an order discharging the rule and the interim stay with costs. Under Rule 3 in Chapter II of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, the Registrar may dispose of applications for orders under order XLI, Rules 5, 6 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure or other interim reliefs. Sub-rule (ii) of the same rule provides that no matter which can be disposed of by the Registrar under Rule 3(i) shall, without the permission of the Court, be placed before the Court. It is, therefore, clear from these provisions that applications for orders under Order XLI, Rules 5,6 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be placed either before the Court or before the Registrar, and they should not be placed before the Court without the permission of the Court. If they are not placed before...
Patel Gandalal Somnath and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj50; (1963)0GLR326
Bhagwati, J. 1. This case once again raises the much debated question as to when an inquiry by a statutory body can be said to be a quasi-judicial inquiry as opposed to an administrative inquiry. The question arises in regard to an inquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and surprisingly enough barring a decision of the High Court of Allahabad, there is no authority in which the question appears to have been considered. The decision of the High Court of Allahabad treats the inquiry as a quasi-judicial inquiry but there is hardly any discussion of the reasons leading upto the conclusion and the conclusion seems to rest merely upon the ipse dixit of the Court. With respect, we do not agree with the decision of the High Court of Allahabad and take the view that the inquiry is an administrative inquiry and rot a quasi-judicial inquiry; but in-asmuch as the question is one of considerable importance and consequence and since we have had the advantage of hearing very able...
Bai Mangu D/O. Shah Trikamlal Harivallabhdas Vs. Shah Parshottamdas Tr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR184
V.B. Raju, J.1. The applicant's application to set aside an award on the ground that no notice was given as required by Section 14( 1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and on some other grounds, was rejected by the 6th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmedabad. But, in appeal, the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad, before whom three submissions were made by the opponent rejected the first two contentions and accepted the last one which was that the award should be set aside on the ground that no notice had been given under Section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act. On that ground alone the learned Extra Assistant Judge in appeal set aside the award and directed that the suit must proceed in accordance with law.In revision it is urged that the order of the Extra Assistant Judge in appeal is erroneous. In this case admittedly a notice required by Section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act had not been given but a notice required by Section 14(2) had been given by the Court. Section 14(1) an...
ichharam Damodardas Vs. Kantilal Nathubhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj28; (1963)GLR242
V.B. Raju, J.1. This civil revision raises an important question as to whether the award of an arbitrator without the intervention of the Court creating a charge on immoveable property worth more than Rs. 100/- requires to be registered before it is filed under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act and followed by a judgment and decree as provided in section 17 of that Act. The award was !or the payment of Rs. 8,000/- and it also provided that a charge should be kept on immoveable property worth more than Rs. 100/-. The learned Judge, therefore, held that the award required registration and refused to accept such an award for the purpose of passing a decree in terms of it. He, therefore, rejected the prayer of the arbitrator, who filed the award, to pass a decree in terms of it.2. In revision, it is contended that this view is erroneous in view of the decision in Seonarain Lal v. Prabhu Chand : AIR1958Pat252 , which is a judgment of a...
Vikramsinhji Banehsinhji Vs. Duda Devshi and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR182
V.B. Raju, J.1. The applicant, who is a Girasdar and to whom certain lands were allowed for personal cultivation and to whom an occupancy certificate was issued under the Land Reforms Act. obtained possession of those lands, but he was dispossessed. He then filed a suit under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act. complaining of dispossession. His plea of dispossession was accepted by the Mamlatdar, but in revision, the learned Deputy Collector, Jetpur, held that the relief could be given under the Land Reforms Act and not under Mamlatdars Courts Act. He. He, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar under the Malatdars' courts Act.He therefore set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar under the Mamlatdars Courts Act. In revision this order of the learned Deputy Collector is challenged. The scheme of the Land Reforms Act is that provided certain other conditions are satisfied a Girasdar is allotted land for personal cultivation and is given an occupancy certificate in ...
Mistri Parshottam Jinabhai Vs. Shah Motichand Shamji and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-19-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj277; (1963)GLR187
ORDERP.N. Bhagwati, J. 1. A short question relating to Court-fees arises for determination in this case. Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 filed a suit againt the appellant to recover a sum of Rs. 4,35,000 at the foot of a mortgage executed by the appellant in favour of respondents Nos. 1 to 6. The suit resulted in a decree for Rs. 5,35,428/- together with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of the decree till payment and costs of the suit. The decree was passed on 7th November 1959. The appellant being aggrieved by the decree filed an appeal against the same in the High Court of Bombay and on the bifurcation of the State of Bombay, the appeal was transferred to this Court. The appellant's contention in the appeal was that respondents Nos. 1 to 6 who were mortgagees in possession had not rendered proper accounts of the mortgaged property and that if proper accounts were taken the appellant would be entitled to credit for Rs. 1,75,625/-against respondents Nos. 1 t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »