Gujarat Court April 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.
ShirajuddIn Badarali Vs. Somaji Pulaji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR308
V.B. Raju, J.1. Opponents Nos. 1 and 2 to this petition had filed a suit praying for a declaration that a notice dated 26-4-58 issued by the Mamlatdar was illegal and praying for an injunction restraining the Mamlatdar and his agents or servants from disturbing their possession of the suit land. The Joint Civil Judge Senior Division Ahmedabad held that the suit land is a service Inam land useful to Government assigned for the remuneration of the services of a Patel. The learned Judge also held that under Section 88 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act nothing in the provisions of the Act applies to lands belonging to or held on lease from the government. He also referred to the Explanation to Section 88 of the Act which reads as follows:For the purposes of Clause (a) of this section land held as Inam or Watan for service useful to Government and assigned as remuneration to the person actually performing such service for ...
Kalicharan Bhajanlal Bhayya Vs. Bai Mahalaxmi, Wd/O. Trikamlal and anr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-04-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR145
J.M. Shelat, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the learned Assistant Judge, Baroda, who confirmed the decree of the trial Court passed against the appellant and dismissed his appeal with costs.On the 26th March 1954, the plaintiff filed suit No. 366 of 1953 in the Court of the learned Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Baroda, for possession of S. No. 825/1 situate within the Borough Municipal limits of Baroda and for mesne profits. According to the plaintiff, the land in suit was leased to the 1st defendant under a rent note dated June 12 1952 at an annual rent of Rs. 40/-. Under that rent note the 1st defendant was bound to hand over possession of the land on May 16 1953 The 1st defendant however failed to deliver up possession of the land to the plaintiff and also failed to pay the rent. According to the plaintiff there was no privity of contract between her and 2nd defendant who according to her was a mere trespasser and was joined as a party to the suit only to prev...
Madhubhai Rambhai Patel Vs. Chimanbhai Kashibhai Patel and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-03-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR97
J.M. Shelat, J.1. This application involves a question as to the correct interpretation of the words in any case for or against the municipality used in Section 28(1)(bb) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act 1925 The question arises in the following manner.At all material times the petitioner and the first respondent were members of the Borough Municipality of Nadiad. On March 4 1961 the petitioner filed an application before the Collector Kaira under Section 28 and Section 28(2) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act 1925 for declaring a vacancy in the seat of the first respondent as a councilor of the municipality. The petitioners case in that application was that the president of the municipality by his letter dated August 6 1960 had requested the Collector to declare the seat of one K.N. Patel vacant under Section 28(2) of the Act as the said K.N. Patel had rendered himself disqualified under Section 12(2)(aa) of the Act on the ground that he had failed to pay the arrears of municipa...
The State Vs. Jayantilal Gokuldas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-02-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR105
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. This is a group of 23 appeals in one of which two questions relating to municipal law and in the rest one such question arise for decision. The facts involved in all the 23 appeals are the same except that the dates are different. We will narrate the facts obtaining in Criminal Appeal No. 400 of 1961 in order to understand the points in dispute in that appeal and the point in dispute in the rest of the appeals. After narrating the facts we will formulate the points and proceed to discuss them. Criminal Appeal No. 400 of 1961 is by the State of Gujarat. The respondent in that appeal is one Shri Nathumal Visandas. He was a hawker in fruits and vegetables hawking his articles in a handbarrow within the limits of the Municipality of Dwarka. The latter Municipality was constituted during the old Baroda regime and there is no dispute that it is now governed by the Bombay District Municipal Act 1901 (hereafter called the Act). This Municipality framed two rules under Sectio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›