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.
Sahebkhan Umerkhan Vs. the State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-10-1962
Reported in: (1963)GLR563
B.J. Divan, JJ.1. The appellant, Sahebkhan Umarkhan, who was the Sarpanch of Hingolgadh Panchayat, from 1st August 1959 to 28th June I960; was alleged to have committed dishonest and criminal misappropriation of various amounts aggregating to Rs, 3000/-and odd. In respect of these criminal misappropriation, 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. 2506.62 nP. during the period August 1, 1959 to July 30, I960, and thereby having committed offences under Section 409, I.P.C. and Section 5(l)(c) punishable under Section 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 nP. during the period from August 1, I960 to June 28, 1961 and thereby having committed offences punishable u...
Bhailal Manilal Vs. Amratlal Lallubhai Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-06-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj141; (1963)0GLR498
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. One of the parties to an agreement, which contained a clause relating to arbitration of disputes that may arise between the parties, filed a suit without getting the dispute settled by arbitration. The suit was stayed and arbitrators were appointed by the parties. On 6-4-59, one of the arbitrators intimated that he wanted to resign vide Ex. 40. Then the plaintiff gave an application, Ex. 41, to the Court to supersede the arbitration, and the Court passed the following order :--'The order of the appointment of arbitrators is superseded and the stay of the suit is vacated and I order to proceed further with the suit.'This order was confirmed in appeal, and aggrieved by this order the defendant has now come in revision.2. It is contended that the Court should have follow-ed the provisions contained in Sections 9 and 10 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act, and that the learned Judge was wrong in passing an order which p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›