Gujarat Court January 1963 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.
The State of Gujarat Vs. Mohamedeli Abdullabhai Panwala and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-1963
Reported in: (1963)4GLR717
V.B. Raju, J.1. Basing his order on Section 10 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act the judicial Magistrate First Class 2 Court Broach passed an order ordering accused No. 4 in a gambling case to be examined as a witness after nearly all the other prosecution witnesses had been examined. For passing his order the learned Judge relied on Rahmankhan v. Emperor A.I.R. 1937 Nagpur 396 and the observations therein that an accused may be taken from the dock and placed in the witness box and returned back to the dock and punished if he fails to satisfy the Court that he is entitled to an indemnity. He also relied on Jwalaprasad and Ors. v. State 1953 Cr. L.J. 985 for his view that an accused may be examined at any stage of the trial as a prosecution Witness. The learned Magistrate also relied on Saikh Moti v. Emperor 14 Cr. L.J. 293. in regard to the ruling in Emperor v. Babilal Balvant 17 Bom. L.R. 1078 the learned Magistrate thought that Section 10 of the Gambling Act has been amended b...
State of Bombay (Now State of Gujarat) Vs. Amarsinh Raval
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-16-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Guj244
1. The respondent, who was the plaintiff, filed a suit against the State of Bombay for a declaration that the order dismissing him from service as a Deputy Superintendent of Police was illegal, null and void and for consequential reliefs and also to recover Rs. 4300/- by way of arrears of salary etc., upto May, 1954. He also prayed for salary and other allowances upto the date of reinstatement and for other reliefs. The first Court granted a decree on the ground that no reasonable opportunity was given to the plaintiff as required by Article 311 of the Constitution. The plaintiff's suit was substantially decreed and almost all the reliefs were awarded. In first appeal, the District Judge, Jamnagar, confirmed this decree of the trial Court. In this second appeal it is urged by the State of Gujarat, which has taken the place of the State of Bombay who was the original defendant, that reasonable opportunity has been given. 2. In the course of the arguments various contentions have been ur...
The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Sheth Manilal Jeshingbhai and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-15-1963
Reported in: (1963)4GLR855
J.M. Shelat, J.1. This and the other 355 applications ate filed by the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad against the various holders of plots situate at Paldi within the area covered by what is known as the Paldi Town Planning Scheme No. VI. These applications are under Article227 of the Constitution and pray for setting aside the orders passed by the Board of Appeal appointed under Section 33 of the Bombay Town Planning Act 1954 whereby the Board reduced (1) the incremental value of the plots from nine to eleven per cent and (2) the contribution levied on each of the plots towards the cost of the scheme as determined by the Town Planning Officer from 50% to 33%.The questions involved in all these applications are identical and therefore it is expedient to dispose of all these applications by a common judgmentPrior to April 1 1957 when the Bombay Town Planning Act 1954 came into force the Bombay Town Planning Act 1915 applied and the Town Planning Schemes were framed under and governe...
DevkishIn Fatechand Vs. Bai Mariambai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-14-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Guj255; (1963)0GLR707
V.B. Raju, J.1. This revision application arises, out of an order passed by the Assistant Judge, Rajkot District, Gondal, rejecting an application for permission to file an appeal as a pauper. The application was rejected on the ground that the appeal itself is barred by limitation. The application was given on 3-4-62. The date of judgment was 31-1-62. The decree was signed on 26-2-62. The application for certified copy of the decree-was given on 2-3-62. The copy was ready for-delivery on 28-3-62. The learned Judge held that in cases where an application for copies was given, after the decree has been signed, the time between the date of judgment and the date on which the decree was signed should not be excluded. The learned Judge relied on Bechi v. Ahsan Ullah Khan, ILR 12 All 461 (FB). The learned Judge has also relied on Kanji Devsi v. Velji Haridas.. : AIR1950Bom350 and Tincowri Haldar V. Nani-gopal Mondal : AIR1960Cal258 .2. Under Order 20, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code,'The decree...
Bai Pani D/O. Lala Valji Vs. Gumanbhai Dahyabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-10-1963
Reported in: (1963)4GLR827
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge Surat recommending that the order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) & J.M.P.C. Olpad dismissing an application of a wife under Section 488 Criminal Procedure Code be set aside. The learned Magistrate held that the divorce alleged by the husband was not proved and held that the husband was possessed of sufficient means to make a monthly allowance to his wife. But he dismissed the application on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the husband ever refused to maintain his wife. The learned Magistrate observed that the wife sat silent for a long period of 17 years without taking recourse to any legal proceedings against her husband and made no demand for maintenance. He therefore observed that when there is no demand the question of refusal does not arise. He therefore held that the husband had not neglected or refused to maintain his wife and therefore dismissed the application.The learned Govern...
Ayer Ravji Vasta Vs. Joshi Gopalji Khimji and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-09-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Guj328; (1963)GLR780
V.B. Raju, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises can be briefly stated as follows : In a redemption suit by 3 mortgagor against the two mortgagees, the appellant, who was 8 tenant of the mortgagees was also joined as a party, but he did not file a written statement. A preliminary decree was passed by consent between the mortgagor and the mortgagees. In the final decree, it was ordered that possession should be delivered to the mortgagor.2. In the execution of that decree, the appellant who was a tenant of the mortgagees, gave an application praying to the Court that actual possession should not be given, but only symbolical possession. In para 2 of his application he has stated as follows :'The plaintiff and defendants Ncs. 1 and 2 have compromised the matter on 21sl January 1956. I was not a party to that. I am tenant of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. So, actual possession cannot legally be taken from me. But symbolical possession can be taken as provided in Order 21, Rule 36. So, ...
Rameshchandra Balabhai Desai Vs. Padmaben Kalidas Desai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-08-1963
Reported in: (1963)4GLR783
V.B. Raju, J.1. In a suit filed by a wife against her husband for divorce the husband gave an application for discovery of documents. This application was rejected by the Civil Judge Senior Division Surat and hence the husband has now come in revision.In his application the husband stated that the wife bad produced some letters along with her plaint and he prayed that whatever other letters and documents that may be in her possession should have been discovered and the wife should be ordered to file an affidavit of documents. Regarding the letters the learned Judge observed in his order that he is expected to know the letters written by him to the petitioner (wife). Regarding the other documents the learned Judge observed that he does not disclose which other documents relating to the petition are in possession of the petitioner (wife). The learned Judge therefore thought that the application for filing affidavit or documents was vague and without any basis. He therefore rejected the a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›