Gujarat Court August 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.
Shah Shantilal Chunilal Vs. Shah Shantilal Fulchand and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-30-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj195; (1963)GLR698
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is an application by the original plaintiff, who had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 94 of 1959 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Karjan for the recovery of Rs. 3700/- from two persons, who were attendants Nos. 1 and 2. In the suit defendant No. 2 was sought to be made liable because he was a member of a joint Hindu family consisting of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, although the promissory note was executed by defendant No. 1 alone.2. The plaintiff then gave an application for amending the plaint in the following terms:'In the alternative it is also prayed that both the defendants are the brothers and they have a joint undivided family and they have a joint family running cloth shop and that it is managed by the defendant No. 1. And for the business of the said shop the defendant No. 1 had purchased the cloth from the plaintiff and after settling the account thereof in the interest and benefit of the defendants' joint family, the defendant No. 1 as Manager o...
Kantilal Khimchand Vs. the State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-30-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ558; (1963)GLR647
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. The applicant was convicted under Sections 380, 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that the accused was a plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 304 of I960 pending in? the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Surat. Defendant No. 1 produced a list, Ex. 28, along with Ex. 28/1, a receipt purporting to have been passed by the accused. Before the receipt was actually exhibited. it was the prosecution case that the plaintiff took it from the record of the Court and inserted in its place Ex. 18, a forged document which is alleged to have been forged by him adding some words to the words in the original document. According to the prosecution both Exs. 28/1 and Ex. 18, the forged receipt, were signed by the accused. On these facts, the accused was prosecuted under Sections 380, 467 and 471, I. P. Code, and has been convicted by the trial Court as well as by the Sessions Court in appeal.2. Now in revision it is contended by the learned Counsel for the a...
S. Manuel Raj and Co. Vs. J. Manilal and Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-29-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj148; (1963)GLR540; MANU/GJ/0069/1963
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. This revision application is filed by the original defendants. The plaintiffs placed an order on a printed form of the defendants on which it was printed in bold types 'Subject to Madras Jurisdiction'. An order form was signed by the plaintiffs and sent to the defendants. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Ahmedabad, rejected the contention of the defendants that only the Madras Court had jurisdiction, and decreed the suit. Therefore the original defendants have now come to this Court in revision. The main contention urged by them is that only the Madras Court has jurisdiction in view of the fact that the order form signed by the plaintiffs contains in bold types 'subject to Madras jurisdiction' and it is also underlined in print. This contention must be accepted because when the order form signed by the plaintiff contains in bold types the words 'subject to Madras Jurisdiction', it must be taken that the plaintiffs agreed to the term that only the Mad...
Labhabhai Vithaldas Vs. Laxmidas Vithaldas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-29-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR567
V.B. Raju, J.1. The first point urged in this revision application is that when a notice under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act is given for the payment of arrears of rent not at the rate of contractual rent but at a rate higher than standard rent the notice itself becomes invalid and in such a case no suit can be filed as provided in Section 12(2) of the Act. In order to decide this question it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act Section 7 of the Act reads as follows:Except when the rent is liable to periodical increment by virtue of an agreement entered into before the first day of September 1940 it shall not be lawful to claim or receive on account of rent for any premises any increase above the standard rent unless the landlord was before the coming into operation of this Act entitled to recover such increase under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Restriction Ac...
Umedchand Makanji Jhaveri Vs. Firm Mistry Lalji Jhina and Sons and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-27-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj45; (1963)0GLR274
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. In a suit filed by the applicant for possession of certain parts of house property from his alleged landlords, namely, defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and from two other persons, namely defendants Nos. 4 and 5, the District Court of Surat held that the suit fell under Section 1(V) of the Court fees Act and not under Section 7(xi)(e). The Judge, therefore, passed the following order:'The learned trial Judge should record evidence on the point as to the market value of the suit property and then ask the plaintiff, to pay the necessary court-leas on the market value of the suit property. In case the plaintiff does not pay the necessary court-fees, within the time fixed by the trial Court, it shall pass such orders as it thinks fit. In case, the trial Court gives the finding that me market value of the suit property exceeds Rs. 10000/-(Rupees ten thousand), it shall return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. It should be understood by the parti...
Vasava Mohan Moti Vs. Indravadan Kuberdas Sampatram and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-20-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR387
M.R. Mody, J.1. The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is again the Act which has given rise to these two civil revision applications. These two civil revisional applications have been filed by the respective petitioners against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sankheda on miscellaneous application No. 5 of 1960.In order to appreciate the points raised in this application it is necessary to mention a few facts and these facts are very simple. There is an immovable property bearing survey No. 274 in the village Morakhala in Kalol Taluka of the Panch Mahals District. This immovable property consisted of agricultural lands. This agricultural land was owned by one Kuberdas Sampatram the father of the opponents before me.Before the year 1939 Kuberdas Sampatram mortgaged these agricultural lands to one Tribhuvan Nathalal and Purshottam Gulab. In the year 1950 Kuberdas Sampatram filed a suit being regular civil su...
Batuk Jamnadas Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-06-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR810
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Ahmedabad forfeiting the amount of a bond executed by the appellant on 19th June 1961 for keeping the peace pending the completion of an inquiry before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. A complaint was lodged before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the effect that the appellant was likely to commit a breach of the peace and that proceedings should therefore be adopted against him under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code. On the complaint the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate made an order under Section 112 Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate also on the application of the police made another order on the same day. That order consisted of two parts. By the first part the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed the appellant to execute an interim bond for Rs. 500/- with one surety of like amount for keeping the peace pending the completion of th...
Jinabhai Ambaram Surti Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-02-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR559
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This is an application to revise an order passed by the Special Magistrate (Municipal) First Court Ahmedabad refusing to stay the hearing of the complaint before him pending the hearing and final disposal of Civil Suit No. 1965 of 1961 pending in the City Court Ahmedabad. The petitioner constructed a bath-room on the Otla of his house situate in Khadia Ward No. 1 in the City of Ahmedabad. According to the Municipal Corporation the construction was covered by Section 254 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949 and the petitioner was not entitled to make the same without giving the requisite notice to the Municipal Commissioner under Rule 6(1) of Chapter XII of the Schedule to the Act. No such notice was however given by the petitioner to the Municipal Commissioner before carrying out the construction. Since the construction was according to the Municipal Corporation carried out contrary to the provisions of Rule 6(1) of Chapter XII of the Schedule to...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›