Gujarat Court May 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.
indulal K. Yagnik Vs. State and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj259; 1963CriLJ502; (1963)GLR209
Miabhoy, J.1. The petitioner Shri Indulal Kanaiyalal Yagnik has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. He challenges inter alia, the constitutionality of Clause (r), Sub-clause (iii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, (hereafter called the 'Act'), and the rules made thereunder. The challenge is on the ground that the clause and the rules are violative of Articles 19(1)(a) and 14 of the Constitution.The petitioner also challenges an order, dated 8th March 1961, passed by the second respondent, who is the Police Commissioner of Ahmedabad.The challenge is on the same grounds. The petitioner also challenges the act of the third respondent, by which the latter seized a microphone from petitioner's possession.2. A party bearing the name of 'Ahmedabad. Janata Samiti' was formed to contest the Municipal elections which were to be held at Ahmedabad in March 1961. The 'Samiti' put up 45 cor.didates at the election. The petitioner, who was the...
HuseIn Nabi Bux and ors. Vs. Modhia Chhotalal Mansukhlal Morarji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR400
B.J. Divan, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arising out of certain execution proceedings.By a document executed on February 25, 1929, Mansukhlal Ramji sold Survey No. 533 of Dohad to Chhotalal Mansukhlal and Punamchand Shivlal. The sale-price was mentioned as Rs. 10/000/- but it was not paid at the time of the sale. Thereafter Punamchand paid the entire price to the seller and Punamchand in his turn sold the property to Nayak Mansinhji Mokanrsinhji. Mansukhlal, the vendor, died and his heir was his daughter Bai Punji. Bai Punji filed a suit against Chhotalal Mansukhlal who is the respondent in the present appeal to recover the purchase price. Subsequently Chhotalal filed a suit against Bai Punji Punamchand Nayak Mansinhji and the tenants on the property to recover possession of the property. It may be pointed out that the appellants before this Court are those tenants. On August 8 1943 the suit was decreed in favour of Chhotalal Mansukhlal and Pu...
Kumbhar Ramji Jadev Vs. the State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-03-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ560; (1963)4GLR517
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. In this criminal revision application, it is urged that the learned Magistrate, who tried the case summarily, rightly adopted the warrant procedure, but it is contended that he did not follow all the requirements of the warrant procedure, in particular, the requirements contained in sections 254 and 256, Criminal Procedure Code. Section 254, Cr. P. C. relates to the framing of charge when offence appears to have been proved. In this case, it is urged that no charge has been framed. But this is a simple case of the charge binder section 323, I. P. Code, and in view of Section 537, Cri. Pro. Code, I hold that no prejudice has been caused to the applicant, when there has been no failure of justice. Moreover, the Rojkam says that the charge was framed and read over and explained to the accused.2. As regards the requirements of section 256, Cri. P. C Section 256 (1) of the said section reads as follows:If the accused refuses to plead, or does not plead, or claims to be ...
Mahendra Ratilal Patel and anr. Vs. Patel Nagindas Keshavlal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj40; (1963)GLR317
Bakshi, J.1. This revision application under Section 5 (2) of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 raises a controversial question of some Importance regarding the computation for the purpose of Court-fees of a claim In an appeal filed after the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 came Into force, against a decree passed in a suit Instituted at a time when the Court-Fees Act, 1870 was in operation. The claim in the plaint was computed and valued according to the Court-fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter called the old Act) which was then in force and Court-fees were paid at the rate then prevailing. On 1st August 1959 the Bombay Court-Fees Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the new Act) came into force and a decree in the suit out of which the present matter arises was passed thereafter. When an appeal against that decree was preferred in the High Court, the Officer raised an objection to the computation made by the appellants who are the petitioners in the present matter and asked the petitioners to compute th...
Balubhai Dahyabhai Shroff and ors. Vs. Govindbhai Dayalbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj117; (1963)0GLR520
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. The opponent filed a Darkhast for the possession of half the share of the property wines be had purchased in the execution of a money decree. But subsequently fie gave another application for the possession of the whole share in the property namely. Survey No. 97, on the ground that fie was entitled to possession of the other half also by reason of a private sale by the co-sharer. The Teamed Judge rejected the contention of the judgment-debtors, and ordered that warrant for possession for whole of the disputed property Survey No. 97 should be issued. In revision, this order is challenged.2. In my opinion, the learned Judge below has acted beyond the jurisdiction vested in him. Under Order 21, Rule 97 and Rule 98, Civil Procedure Code, the executing Court can order the delivery of possession of immoveable property in execution proceedings if the decree is for possessionof the immoveable property or if the property had been purchased in execution of a decree. The ord...
Glamour Cleaners Vs. Chandrakant Chhotalal Gandhi and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-1962
Reported in: (1962)3GLR941
P.M. Bhagwati, J.1. This group of matters consists of four Revision Applications and one appeal. They all raise the same question and are therefore being disposed of by a common judgment. The question raised is a question of considerable importance and it is whether the holder of a statutory tenancy under the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) has power to sublet whole or part of the premises and thereby confer on the sub-tenant the benefit of the protective provision contained in Section 14 of the Rent Act. The facts giving rise to these matters are for the most part undisputed and may be briefly stated as follows.Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi is a Public Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 Chandrakant Chhotalal Gandhi and Kantilal Bhogilal Nanavati are the present trustees of that trust. By an Indenture of Lease dated 18th July 1949 the then trustees granted a lease of certain premises situate on Relie...
The Shivrajpur Syndicate Ltd. and anr. Vs. Mohanlal Nathabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR446
V.B. Raja, J.1. This revision application is filed by the original plaintiffs, who filed Civil suit No. 55 of 1957 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalol, for recovering vacant possession of land S.N. 183 in Sivrajpur village. It was contended that the land was not land as defined in the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act, and further that a notification under Section 88(b) of the Act had been issued by the Government on 28-3-1957, reserving the suit land for non-agricultural use and industrial development and that on that account also the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the suit land. The contention of the opponent was that he was a permanent tenant and he had been cultivating the suit land for many years, although subsequently the land was used for non-agricultural purpose. The learned Judge framed certain preliminary issues, and although the issue of the notification was admitted by him, the lea...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›