Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1963Guj276
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. This is a revision application by the original defendants Nos. 2 and 3. Opponents Nos 1 to 3 were the original plaintiffs and opponent No. 4 was original defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs gbtained a decree in Special Civil Suit No. 31 of 1960 for Rs, 20,000/- which was passed against opponent No. 4 who is the father of the applicants and one G. K. Ghael. In the plaint filed by ihe plaintiffs, it was alleged that certain partition between the sons of opponent No. 4 was a transfer and fraud on the creditors and should be declared as such. A declaration was also prayed that the plaintiffs have right to attach the property in question. The plaint also prayed for an injunction to restrain the petitioners and opponent No. 4 from obstructing the plaintiffs from recovering their dues by attachment of the property.2. Various contentions were raised in the written statement including one relating to the maintainability of the suit. By its judgment dated 39-8-61, the trial Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1963)4GLR571; (1963)IILLJ726Guj
Desai, C.J.1. Bhalchandra Ramchandra Vaidya, the petitioner before us has filed this special Civil Application against the State of Gujarat praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other orders and directions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calling for the record and proceedings of the case against the petitioner and quashing and setting aside an order of dismissal passed against the petitioner and for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other writs, orders and directions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, ordering the State of Gujarat to cancel the said order of dismissal or to forbear from taking any steps or action under the said order and from doing any act prejudicial to the rights and interests of the petitioner. The petitioner has further asked for a declaration that the petitioner is and be continued in service of the Police Department of the State of Gujarat and be given his proper seniority and other reliefs.2. in the year ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1964Guj183; (1963)4GLR841
Bhagwati, J. 1. The short question which arises in this petition is whether the heirs of a person who is a deemed tenant under Section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1918, (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) are entitled to inherit the tenancy on the death of such person under the provisions of the Tenancy Act as it stood prior to its amendment by Bombay Act 13 of 1956 or whether the tenancy comes to an end on the death of such person? Various ingenious arguments have been advanced by Mr. B.G. Thakore, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, in support of the contention that the tenancy is heritable but they are all ill-founded and we cannot assent to any of them. On a true construction of the provisions of the Tenancy Act the tenancy is clearly not heritable and we shall briefly indicate our reasons for taking this view but before we do so, we may conveniently set out the facts giving rise to the petition. 2. The petitioner is the occupan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1964CriLJ94; (1964)GLR298
V.B. Raju, J.1. What is challenged in this criminal revision application is an order of the City Magistrate, 3rd Court, Ahmedabad, asking the accused persons, namely the applicants, to go to the' police station and give their handwritings and signatures to the police. It is true that the giving of signatures or giving of handwriting is not hit by Article 20 of the Constitution as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State-of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu : 1961CriLJ856 . But the question before me is not whether the giving of signatures or giving of handwriting is hit by Article to of the Constitution, but the-question is whether the Magistrate has power to ask the accused persons who are on bail to go to the police and give their specimens of signatures and handwriting. The powers of Magistrates and Police Officers are prescribed under various laws. Those powers cannot be enlarged. There must be-something in the law for the exercise of power if such power is to be exercised by a pol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1967)8GLR851
V.B. Raju, J.1. The facts out of which this revision application arises can be briefly stated thus: In a suit filed by the petitioner, he produced a document at Item No. 1 in the list Ex. .3.. As provided in Order 13, Rule 3, C. P. Code, this instrument was rejected as inadmissible in evidence by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Navsari, who held that the document was an instrument of partition and not being stamped it was inadmissible in evidence. He therefore rejected the document as inadmissible and ordered that it cannot be exhibited.2. In revision, it is contended that the learned Judge in passing this order has committed a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction and this order is challenged in revision. The Learned Counsel for the opponents raise an objection and contend that matters relating to the admissibility of evidence cannot be the subject matter of revision.3. Before the High Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P. Code, there must be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1963CriLJ713; (1964)GLR263
V.B. Raju, J.1. This revision application arises out of the following facts: The applicants were charge-sheeted under Section 120B, I. P. Code, read with Sections 465, 467 and 468, I. P. Code in the Court of the J. M. F. C. Mandvi, Kutch. After the receipt of the charge sheet the learned. Magistrate fixed a date for holding a committal inquiry under Section 207-A, Cri. P. C. On that date applications were given on behalf of the accused saying that the learned Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance in view of the provision of Section 196-A, Cri, P. C. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application of the accused under Section 196-A, Cri. P. C. and ordered that the committal inquiry under Section 207-A, Cri. P. C. should proceed against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 465, 467 and 468, I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, in revision, confirmed this order and rejected the revision application before him. Hence the present revisi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1964CriLJ238; (1964)GLR382
V.B. Raju, J.1. This criminal revision application arises out of a police report with respect to. an offence Under Section 379, I. P. Code against the applicants. The learned Magistrate, namely the J.M.F.C., Mandyi, Kutch, decided that the case was groundless Under Section 251-A, Cri. P. Code. In revision, the learned Sessions Judge, Kutch, held that the learned Magistrate was wrong in holding that the charge against the accused was-groundless. In the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge, the charge against the accused was not groundless. He, therefore, passed the following, order Under Section 436, Cri. P. C.The revision application is accepted. The learned J.M.F.C. Mandvi, is hereby directed and ordered to frame a charge against the accused, and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law.2. It is true that while exercising jurisdiction Under Section 436, Cri. P. C. the learned Sessions-Judge can only direct a further inquiry. Section 436(1), Cri. P. C. reads as follows:On exa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1963Guj243; (1963)GLR943
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. This revision application is by the State of Gujarat. A few facts are necessary to state for understanding the controversy. Plaintiffs' claim was that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to rent etc., in respect of a shop. According to the plaint, defendant No. 3 was in actual possession of the said shop as a tenant of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiffs therefore claimed to eject defendant No. 3 and prayed for possession of the shop. Defendant No. 3 died on 30-10-1958, but this fact was not noticed by either the Trial Court or the counsel, and a decree was passed on 7-1-1959. An appeal was filed against the decree, and in the course of the appeal, application, Ex. 14, was filed on 31-3-1960, for bringing the heirs of deceased defendant No. 3 on record. Another application, Ex. 23, was given by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to the effect that the suit had abated and that the Court should declare that the suit had abated. The Appellats Court passed one order on both Ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1963)4GLR817
J.M. Shelat, J.1. The controversy in this application centers round S. No. 357 situate in the village Antali Bhimji Taluka Dhandhuka District Ahmedabad. On May 31 1943 opponents 1 and 2 mortgaged this land to the Petitioner. In 1958 they filed suit No. 79 of 1958 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) at Dhandhuka against the petitioner praying for redemption of the mortgage and possession of the land. In that suit the petitioner contended that he was a protected tenant and therefore possession could not be taken from him by virtue of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 He also contended that he was a tenant long before the mortgage and that being so he was protected by the aforesaid Act. On these contentions the learned Civil Judge framed two issues. The first issue was whether the petitioner was a deemed tenant by virtue of his being a mortgagee in possession before the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 came into force and the sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1963)0GLR622; (1963)IILLJ527Guj
Desai, C.J.1. This special civil application raises very interesting questions regarding the powers of an industrial tribunal when dealing with an application made under S. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. Mulji Ganda, respondent 2 before us, was an employee of the Dhrangadhra Chemical Works, Ltd., the petitioner before us. For most of the time he had done the work of a stone feed coolie. It is alleged that on 6 September, 1961 he threatened Dulerai Dave, the shift mechanical engineer employed by the Dhrangadhra Chemical Works, Ltd., and used abusive language. According to the evidence of Dave given before the inquiry officer, he thereafter to chop off all persons in the office. He is further alleged to have stated that Dave knew that he, Mulji Ganda, had been sentenced to jail for six months and that Dave should think over the matter and that after killing Dave he would kill all and sundry. This incident occurred on the early morning of 7 September, 1961 between the h...
Tag this Judgment!