Gujarat Court April 1962 Judgments
Jaswantrai Jethalal Vaidya Vs. Vimal W/O Jaswantrai Jethalal and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-30-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj152; (1963)GLR514
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. The petitioner filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. against his wife VimaI on the ground that she was living in adultery with one Madnukar, opponent No. 2. He also claimed Rs. 10,000/- as damages from Madhukar. Ths learned Civil Judge held that the claim for damages was not tenable in proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act. It is against this order that the present revision application has been filed.2. In revision, it is contended that under Rule 5 at the Bombay High Court Rules, it is obligatory for a petitioner who files a petition for divorce on the ground ofadultery, to name and cite the co-respondent. It is, therefore, urged that under Order 2, Rule 2, and Order 2 Rule 3, C. P. Code, the claim for damages against an adulterer can be joined in the petition for divorce in view of the provisions of Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage ACI, 1955. It is also contended that under the Hindu Marriage Act, the forms attached to ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Gafar Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-27-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj48; (1963)0GLR247
Shelat, J.1. The question arising in this application is with regard to the effect of the change made in the definition of 'foreigner' in the Foreigners Laws (Amendment) Act, XI of 1957.2. The petitioner was born in Anjar (Kutch) in 1909. He was educated at Anjar and lived with his paternal uncle one Alimahomed, a Sanadi Vakil of Anjar. Until September 1947, he worked as a clerk of his uncle. Prior thereto, in 1942, he was nominated as a member of the Municipality of Anjar. It was said that sometime in September 1947, differences of opinion arose between him and his uncle and, therefore, he left India and went to Pakistan. He lived in Karachi front September 1947 until June 1956 and during that period he worked as a salesman and maintained himself out of the remuneration earned by him as a salesman. On June 11, 1956, he made an application to the Government of India for a permit for permanent resettlement. That was while he was still in Karachi. No such permit has yet been granted to t...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmed Noor Karimbhai Vs. the State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-26-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj221; 1963CriLJ261; (1963)0GLR426
V.B. Raju, J. 1. The appellant was convicted under Section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, The conviction rested on the evidence of the police officer and the Ranch witness, who supported the prosecution case. The defence examined-the second panch who deposed that he did not witness the finding of the bottles of liquor in possession of the appellant. But, according to him, the bottles were at the police station and a panchnama was made at the police station. The learned Magistrate believed the prosecution case that 16 bottles of liquor were found in possession of the appellant and that only one bottle which was sent to the Chemical Analyser was certified by him to contain liquor.2. The learned counsel for the appellant challenges the conviction on five grounds. The first is that Section 342, Cr. P. C. was not complied with, as only one question was put to the appellant regarding the possession of the bottles, Under Section 342 (1), Cr. P. C. this provision has been enacted only to...
Tag this Judgment!Mohmad Ahmed Vali Mohmad Vs. Ranchhoddas Tribhovandas and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR279
V.B. Raju, J.1. The petitioner in this civil revision application was the original defendant. The opponents had filed a suit against him for possession of the suit property, namely premises bearing No. 4130, situated in ward 4, Begampura, Surat, on the ground that the suit property, originally belonged to one Shri Maganlal, who created trust in respect of the property and by the said trust directed that the said property be used for a maternity home, and he transferred the property to the trustees for administration as a public charitable trust by a registered deed. The plaint proceeded to allege that the suit property was required by the trustees for converting the property into a maternity hospital. The trial Court decreed the suit for eviction and also decreed the rent due and mesne profits. The decree was confirmed in appeal. In this revision application only that part of the decree which relates to eviction is challenged and four points are urgedIt is contended that Section 25(1) ...
Tag this Judgment!Hasanalli Abdulalli Malabari Vs. Shantilal Bhaidas Marfatia and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Guj317; (1963)GLR94
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Surat, dismissed an application to set aside an award on the ground of limitation, namely on the ground that the application was filed after 30 days from the data on which the parties had notice of the filing of the award.2. Under Article 158 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, the period of limitation, to set aside an award under the Arbitration Act, 1940 or to get an award remitted for reconsideration, is thirty days from the date of service of the notice of filing of the award. Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which wilt hereinafter be referred to as the Act, reads as follows:'The arbitrators or 'umpire shall, at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming under such party or if so directed by the Court and upon payment of the fees and charges due In respect of the arbitration and award and of the costs and charges of filing the award, cause the award or a signed copy of it, toget...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Ambalal Chhotalal and ors. Vs. Shah Babaldas Dayabhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Guj9; (1962)GLR625
Shelat, J. 1. This application and Civil Revision Applications Nos. 96 of 1960 and 8 of 1961, though involving different facts raise common questionsof law on the construction of Section 12 of theBombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House RatesControl Act, LVII of 1947 (hereinafter referredto as the Act), and can expediently be disposedof by a common judgment. Though questionsarising in these applications have been previouslydealt with in several applications of this kind,there have been so many opinions diversely expressed in reported as well as unreported judgments that we think it desirable that the law laiddown in Section 12 of the Act needs to be restated. 2. We propose to first take up Civil Revision Application No. 86 of 1960, as it is in that application that the learned advocates concerned therein as also others interested in the other applications urged their various points of view and pointed out to us expression of opinions in several judgments, both reported and unreported. 3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Miyabhai Pirbhai and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj188; 1963CriLJ141; (1963)GLR253
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is a criminal revision application by 26 persons, who were convicted by the 4th Joint Civil Judge (J. D.) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baroda, under Sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act and whose convictions were confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baroda.2. In revision, it is urged that the prosecution case rested on the evidence of a Panch, who had turned hostile, a punter and the Investigating Police Officer. It is contended that a Panchnama made is inadmissible in evidence and that when the Pancha has turned hostile, the conviction under Sections 4 and 5 of the Prevention of Gambling Act would rest on the evidence of the Police Officer and the punter, both of whom are interested witnesses. It is also contended that the alleged finding of the instruments of gaming cannot offer corroboration be-cause the alleged finding is sought to be proved by the evidence of the interested witnesses. It is contended that the corr...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Kamala Vs. Occhavlal Chhaganlal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-1962
Reported in: AIR1965Guj84; (1963)GLR509
(1) This appeal from an order is by the original defendant No. 1, who is the widow of one Choksiwala Mangaldas Ranchhoddas. The plaintiff claiming to be one of the reversioners had file a suit against the widow of the deceased Mangaldas and against two other defendants for a declaration that the will executed by her in favour of her brother, defendant No. 2 was not for legal necessity; for declaration that some other documents executed by defendant No. 1 were not binding on the rights of the reversioners; for a direction that the widow should be asked to keep accounts; for an injunction restraining her from wasting the property of her deceased husband and from injuring the rights of the reversioners and for a appointment of a receiver of the property. The suit was filed in 1954 and while the suit was pending, the Hindu Law of Succession came into force in1956. The learned trial Judge, therefore, framed an issue as follows:'In view of S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act whether the suit i...
Tag this Judgment!Chhana Kika and anr. Vs. Kala Chhima
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR197
J.M. Shelat J.1. This revision application raises a short question of interpretation of Section 32(2)(v) of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act 1947.The property in question is survey No. 153/1 admeasuring about five bighas and situate in the village Chandravasan Supa District Surat. The village Chandravasan Supa was at first in Jalalpur Taluka Surat District but after the merger of Baroda when the Baroda territory in Navsari was merged into the State of Bombay there was re-distribution of Taluka boundaries and the village Chandravasan Supa was transferred to the Navsari Taluka in Surat District. It is not in dispute and this fact has been expressly admitted before us by Mr. Vidhyarthi that the village Chandravasan Supa did not at any time form part of the Baroda territory and was all along part of British India and thereafter the Indian Dominion and now the Union of India. On July 22 1922 the father of the opponent executed a deed of sale in respect of the property in question ...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Kamala Wd/O. Chokshiwala Mangaldas Ranchhoddas Vs. Ochhavlal Chhag ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR509
V.B. Raju, J.1. This appeal from an order is by the original defendant No. 1 who is the widow of one Choksiwala Mangaldas Ranchhoddas. The plaintiff claiming to be one of the reversioners had filed a suit against the widow of the deceased Mangaldas and against two other defendants for a declaration that the will executed by her in favour of her brother defendant No. 2 was not for legal necessity; for declaration that some other documents executed by defendant No. 1 were not binding on the rights of the reversioners; for a direction that the widow should be asked to keep accounts; for an injunction restraining her from wasting the property of her deceased husband and from injuring the rights of the reversioners and for an appointment of a receiver of the property. The suit was filed in 1954 and while the suit was pending the Hindu Law of Succession came into force in 1956. The learned trial Judge, therefore framed an issue as follows:In view of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act whe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »