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.
Dayashankar Nanalal Vs. Harishankar Ganapatram Thaker and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Guj319; (1963)GLR47
V.B. Raju, J.1. In this Civil Revision application, it 13 contended that the executing Court had no right to go into the questions of title while investigating a claim or objection made under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code. The mode of such investigation is explained in Order 21, Rule 58, Order 21, Rule 59 and Order 21, Rule 60, Civil Procedure Code. Order 21, Rule 58 relates to claims or objections on the ground that the property attached was not liable to such attachment. The question whether thr property was or was not liable to such attachment is therefore to be investigated. Order 21, Rule 59, Civil Procedure Code provides that the claimant or objector must adduce evidence to show that at the date of the attachment he had some interest in, or was possessed of, the property attached. The executing Court has therefore to see whether the claimant or objector has adduced evidence to show that at the date of the attachment he had some interest or was possessed of the property ...
Vasudev Devnath Pandya Vs. Karsan Kamshi Bharwad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-15-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj153; (1963)0GLR172
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This litigation has had a checkered career and after passing through various stages it has now coma in Second Appeal before this Court. The plaintiff ns a result of a protracted litigation obtained a decree for possession against defendant No. I in Civil Suit No. 153 of 1946. The plaintiff thereafter filed Darkhast No. 77 of 1959 to recover possession of the suit land from defendant No. I A warrant for possession was issued but at the time of the execution of the warrant, defendant No. 2 caused obstruction stating that he was in possession of the suit land in his own right and the warrant for possession could not, therefore, be executed. The plaintiff then made an application to the executing Court to remove the obstruction caused by defendant No. 2. The application, it seems, was made in the Darkhast proceedings and was not numbered as a separate application tinder Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The executing Court took the view that the applicat...
Shrimali Rasiklal Rajabhai Vs. Bai Amba
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-14-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR169
V.B. Raju, J.1. The applicant, who was defendant in matrimonial proceedings under the Baroda Hindu Nibandh and against whom a decree nisi had been passed for divorce, gave an application under para 7 of the 7th Schedule to the Baroda Hindu Nibandh, objecting to making final the decree nisi, but his application was rejected by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Mehsana on the ground that an application under para 7 of the 7 Schedule to the Baroda Hindu Nibandh which is taken from Section 16 of the Indian Divorce Act could only be made by a person who is not party to the original proceedings and could not be made by the defendant himself. On this ground the application was rejected.In revision it is contended that the rejection of the application on such a ground was a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. The judgment of the learned Judge was based only on certain decisions of some High Courts on Section 16 of the Indian Divorce Act in particular on the decision i...
U. Bhukhandas D. Chevli and Co. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj150
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. A suit filed by the applicants against the Central Railway and the Union of India for damages in respect of a consignment of Kashmiri shawls was dismissed on the ground that under Schedule II of the Railways Act and under Section 75 of the said Act, the parcel of shawls should have teen declared and insured as it contained shawls exceeding Rs. 300/- in value.2. In revision, it is contended that although item 'm' of Schedule II refers to 'shawls' in general, in view of the marginal note in Section 75 of the Railways Act only shawls of special value have to be declared and insured. The marginal note of Section 75 reads as follows:'Further provision with respect to the liability of a railway administration as a carrier of articles of special value.'Section 75 (1) of the Railways Act reads as follows:'When any articles mentioned in the second schedule are contained in any parcel or package delivered to a railway administration for carriage by railway, and the value of ...
Kanbi Bechar Lala and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Guj316; (1963)0GLR57
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. The applicants, who were charged under sec-tions 147, 447, 426 and 505, Indian Penal Code, were discharged by the learned Magistrate. In revision, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of discharge and passed an order under Section 436, Cr. P. Code, directing further inquiry.2. in revision, it is contended that the learned Sessions Judge was not right in doing so. It is atso urged that it is not competent to order an inquiry in a case in which a trial had already been commenced. I reject both these contentions for the following reasons.3. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that the learaed Magistrate has not discussed the evidence in a proper manner end rejected it alter a superficial discussion. Tbe learned Sessions Judge has referred to three reasons on which the order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate was based. The learned Sessions Judge has given detailed reasons for observing that these reasons are superficial. The learned Sessions j...
Fiduhusen Abdulali Vs. the State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-09-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Guj318
ORDERV.B. Raju, J. 1. The applicant was convicted under Sections 337 and 427, Indian Penal-Code, for having rashly and negligently driven his lorry on a narrow culvert and having caused hurt to a person sitting in a jeep and also for having caused damage to the jeep car.2. The finding of both the Courts below is that the applicant was driving his lorry at a great speed and that he ignored the signal of the jeep, although the culvert was a narrow one and although two vehicles could not pass at the same tijne. The finding of rashness and negligence is, therefore, one of fact, which cannot be interfered with in revision. It is, however, -contended that Section 337 could not be applicable, because hurt was not knowingly caused and that a person sitting in the jeep happened to fall and happened to receive a small abrasion as a result of the collision between the two vehicles. The word 'voluntarily' is not used in Section 337, Indian Penal Code. Collision was due to rashness and negligence o...
Kalu Khoda and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-07-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Guj283; (1962)3GLR654
Shelat, J.1. These are four Criminal Revision Applications, together with an application No. 89 of 1962 for bail, by the accused in sessions Case No. 15 of 1961.2. On the 19th of September, 1960, at about 10-0 P, M. the accused Kalu Khoda, Taj Mahomed Siddi and five others were said to have committed dacoity at the house of one Mohanlal Narbheram in the village Tatama, Amreli District. The accused, Taj Mahomed and five others were charge-sheeted in respect of the aforesaid offence in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhari, under Sections 395, 398 read with Section 109 of the Penal Code and Section 19(e) of the Arms Act. That case was numbered as Criminal Case No. 804 of 1960. The accused Kalu Khoda could not be charge-sheeted at that time as he was absconding and, therefore, a separate charge-sheet had to be lodged in the Court of the same learned Magistrate, being criminal Case No. 405 of 1961. It was only on 23rd of March 1961 that the accused Kalu Khoda was...
Kasna Rupla Vs. Makan Khusal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-07-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR167
Raju J.1. An award was passed ex-parte and an application for re-opening the award under Section 36 of the B.A.D.R. Act was rejected by the Civil Judge Junior Division Vyara on the ground that the application was time barred although he expressed the view that there were sufficient reasons for re-opening the award on merits. In appeal this order was confirmed.In revision it is urged that the view taken by the Civil Judge Junior Division Vyara that the Article of the Limitation Act applicable to the application is Article 164 of Schedule I and not article 181 of Schedule I of the Limitation Act. Article 164 of Schedule I of the Limitation Act reads as follows:By a defendant for an Thirty Days The date of the decree ororder to set aside a where the summons was notdecree passed ex-parte. duly served when the applicanthas knowledge of the decree.Article 181 of Schedule I reads as follows:Application for which Three years When the right to apply accrues,no period of limitation is pro-vided ...
Khakhar Shivlal Vallabhaji Vs. Mistry Ramjibhai Dhanjibhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-06-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR164
V.B. Raja, J.1. The District Judge, Bhavnagar, refused to condone the delay in filing an appeal holding that there was no sufficient cause to do 'So. Such an order is not liable to be interfered with in a revision.But, it is, however, contended that in fact there was no delay. The judgment appealed against was pronounced on 2-5-59. Vacation commenced from 3-5-59 and continued till 15-6-59. An application for certified copies of the judgment and decree was made on 6-6-59 and they were delivered on 22-6-59. The appeal was filed on 25-6-59. The District Judge thought that there was a delay of two days, as the appeal had not been filed on 22-6-59. Section 4 of the Limitation Act provides that where the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the Court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted preferred or made on the day that the Court re-opens. Section 12 of the Limitation Act so far as relevant reads as follows:(I) In c...
Bipinkumar Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-02-1962
Reported in: (1963)GLR163
V.B. Raju, J.1. This criminal revision application is treated as appeal. In this case, an order was passed Under Section 1U9, CrIPC without holding an inquiry on the ground that /the person concerned had expressed his willingness to give surety and to furnish security. Section 117(1), Cri. Pro. Cede., reads as under:When an order Under Section 112 has been read or explained Under Section 113 to a person present in Court or when any person appears or is brought before a Magistrate in compliance with, or in execution of a summons or warrant, issued Under Section 114, the Magistrate shall proceed to inquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken, and to take such further evidence as may appear necessary.Even when the person is willing to give surety, Section 117(1) requires that the Magistrate shall proceed to inquire Into the truth of the information and to take such further evidence as may appear necessary. Section 118(1),. Cri. Pro. Code, provides that if up...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »