Gujarat Court September 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.
Surajben Ratilal Anandrao Vs. Shah Raichand Gulabchand and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-26-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj140; (1963)GLR503
V.B. Raju, J.1. In Civil Suit No. 77 of 1952 filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Surat, there was an attachment of a house and lands before judgment, and a decree was passed for Rs. 17,740/-.2. In Civil Suit No. 19 of 1955, which was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bulsar, there was a consent decree for Rs. 3854/-on 5-10-55 and the decree also created a charge on the same property, namely the house and land. The decree was registered. In that suit, Darkhast was filed by the present petitioner, which was Dark-hast No. 84 of 1957 to execute the decree in Suit No. 19 of 1955, and the property which was under charge was sold and money realised.3. On 18-4-56, opponent No. 1 filed a Datkhast in Suit No. 77 of 1952 for the, sale of the same property, and on 22-9-56 an attachment warrant was issued, and the property was ordered to be sold under Order 21, Rule 66, C. P. Code. Subsequently, in, 1958, opponent No. 1 gave an application to the Surat Court to cal...
Bai Chanchal Widow of Chhaganbhai Jibhai and anr. Vs. Bai Suraj Widow ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj198
ORDERV.B. Raju, J. 1. This revision application is against an order of the District Judge of Broach, holding that an appeal before him was not barred by res judicata. A preliminary objection was taken by the learned counsel for the opponents, and he contends that when the lower Court has decided a question of res judicata, no revision lies, and he relies on Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh, ILR 11 Cal 6 (PC).2. In ILR 11 Cal 6 (PC), their Lordships of the Privy Council were dealing with the application of Sections 13 and 43 of Act X of 1877 and also Section 622 of Act X of 1877 as amended by Section 92 of Act XII of 1879. In the case before their Lordships certain properties were mortgaged amongst 8 co-sharers and the right to redeem was afterwards contested by them in an application to the District Court. Subsequently, a suit was filed under Act XXXII of 1871, namely the Oudh Civil Court Act, in the Court of Extra Assistant Commissioner by one Raja Amir Hassan Khan, who sued one S...
Jawansingh Ramsingh Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj111
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. The applicant was convicted under Sections 304A, 279, 338 and 428, I. P. Code and under Section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The conviction is challenged in revision.2. In revision four points were urged, namely (1) That Ex. 18 which is a statement made by the accused at the police station reporting the accident is not admissible in evidence. Ex. 18 is a statement made by the accused. A statement made by a person can be admitted (1) to corroborate his evidence or (2) to contradict his evidence, or (3) as admission made by himself. In this case, it cannot be used either to corroborate or contradict the statement of the accused, because it is a statement made by the accused, who has not given evidence at the trial. An admission is defined in Section 17 of the Evidence Act as under :'An admission is a statement, oral or documentary, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumsta...
Ambalal Narandas Patel Vs. Dhiben Dahyabhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj91; 1963CriLJ594; (1963)GLR501
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. The only point urged in this criminal revision application, which arises out of anorder passed by the City Magistrate, 5th Court, Ahmedabad, under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, is that that Court had no jurisdiction,2. Section 488 (8), Criminal Procedure Code, provides as under :-'Proceedings under this section may be taken against any person in any district where he resides or is, or where he last resided with his wife, or, as the case may be, the mother of the illegitimate child.'It is contended that in this case the husband is a resident of Unava and he also last resided with his wife at Unava and therefore the Ahmedabad Court had no jurisdiction but only the Unava Court. In the application under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, the husband's residence was shown as Unava. It is also stated in the application that the husband and wife last resided together as husband and wife at Unava. It is, therefore, contended that the Unava Court only had jurisdi...
Bhil Ukedia Umedia Vs. Bai Gajarabai Bhulabhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-14-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR381
J.M. Shelat, J.1. This appeal raises a question of construction of Sections 11 and 15 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act 1947 and the question arises in the following manner:On July 23 1948 the appellant who was the original defendant in the suit executed a promissory note in favour of the respondents the original plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 15 673 The parties to the suit were at the material time residing in Savli which was then in the territory of the Baroda State. After the merger of the Baroda State the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act 1947 was applied to that territory which included Savli. On January 28 1950 the plaintiffs filed an application under Section 4 of the Act the debt due to him as set out in the application being Rs. 15 673. It would appear that after that application was filed certain suits for adjustment previously filed by the appellant as a debtor against his other creditors were transferred to the B.A.D.R. Court at Savli under the provisions of t...
Raichand Amulakh Shah and anr. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Representi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-13-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR662
V.B. Raju, J.1. The applicants suit to recover Rs. 230/- from the Union of India as owning and representing the Western Railway on the ground that the amount was wrongfully recovered from the plaintiffs as wharfage and demurrage charges was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the suit was barred under the provisions of Section 26 read with Section 3(14) and Section 32 of the Indian Railways Act. This view is now challenged in revision.The relevant provisions of the Indian Railways Act read as follows:Sec 26. Bar of jurisdiction of ordinary Courts in certain matters. Except as provided in this Act no suit shall be instituted or proceeding taken for anything done or any omission made by a railway administration in violation or contravention of any provision of this Chapter.Section 32 of the Indian Railways Act has been repealed by the Indian Railways (Amendment) Act 1957 (58 of 1957). But the section as it stood before it was repealed read as follows:A railway administration ...
Devnarayan Ramsumar Tewari Vs. State of Bombay Now Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj79; (1963)GLR437
1. A plaint was rejected by the-trial Court, and in appeal that order was reversed by the appellate Court which directed the trial Court to proceed with the suit. It is against this order that this appeal has been filed.2. The plaint was rejected by the trial Court after issues had been framed by it. So the order is clearly wrong. Under Order 14, Rule 1, Civil. Procedure Code, issues are framed at the first hearing of the suit; in other words after the suit has been admitted under Order 7, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code. When a suit has been admitted under Order 7, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code, it cannot be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code. On this ground alone, the appellate Court was right in setting aside the order of the rejection of the plaint.3. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, relies on Kishore Singh v. Sabdal Singh, ILR' 12 All 553, and contends that a plaint can be rejected at any stage of a suit. The learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court...
Samatkhan Qulabkhan Malek Vs. Nanubha Bapaji Thakore and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR705
V.B. Raju, J.1. Opponent No. I gave an application under the S.A.D.R. Act. On the preliminary issue the Board held that he was a debtor. In appeal filed against that decision the learned District Judge Surendranagar held that the debts amounted to more than Rs. 250 and remanded the matter to the Board for giving an opportunity to any of the creditors to remit a portion of the debts so as to reduce the total indebtedness of the debtor to less than Rs. 250. It is against that order that one of the creditors original opponent No. 1 has now come in revision.A preliminary objection has been taken by the Learned Counsel for the opponent and he contends that as the matter has been remanded to the Board no case has been decided. His contention is that an order remanding the matter to the original Court does not amount to a case decided so as to invite the application of Section 115 C.P. Code and he relies on Thakoredas v. Lallubhai 25 Bom. L.R. 452. In that case Macleod C.J. observed as under:...
Fida HuseIn Mahomedali Antelawala Vs. Gokaldas and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-11-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR791
V.B. Raju, J.1. The plaintiff has come in appeal challenging the order of the Civil Judge Senior Division Godhra holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff at Godhra should have been filed at Akola and not at Godhra. The learned Judge held that the contract between the parties was completed at Akola and not at Godhra.The contract between the parties which was alleged in the plaint was a contract to pay the plaintiff brokerage of 2% on the price of the property to be purchased by defendant No. 1. According to the plaintiff defendant No. 1 purchased a factory and he was therefore obliged to pay 2% commission on that price. He therefore filed a suit at Godhra.2. Section 20 of the Code of Civil procedures which is material provides among other things that every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises. A cause of action is a bundle of essential facts which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove befo...
Sahebkhan Umerkhan Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-10-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ556; (1963)0GLR563; (1963)IILLJ540Guj
Divan, J. 1. The appellant, Sahebkhan Umarkhan, who was the sarpanch of Hingolgadh Panchayat, from 1 August, 1959 to 28 June, 1960, was alleged to have committed dishonest and criminal misappropriation of various amounts aggregating to Rs. 3,000 and odd. In respect of these criminal misappropriations, two separate trials were commenced against the accused before the Special Judge, Rajkot district, Rajkot. In Special Criminal Case No. 17 of 1961, the accused was charged with having committed dishonest misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 2,506.62, during the period 1 August, 1959 to 30 July, 1960 and thereby having committed offence under S. 409, Indian Penal Code, and S. (5)(1)(c) punishable under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In Special Criminal Case No. 2 of 1962, the same accused was charged for having dishonestly misappropriated an amount of Rs. 656.97 during the period from 1 August, 1960 to 28 June, 1961 and thereby having committed offences punishable under S. 409, In...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »