Gujarat Court March 1963 Judgments
Laljibhai Jodhabhai Bar Vs. Vinodchandra Jethalal Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-28-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Guj297; (1963)GLR523
K.T. Desai, C.J.1. This is 'an appeal from the decision of the Election Tribunal at Palanpur, Banaskantha District, given on the 13th October, 1962, dismissing the petition filed by Shri Laljibhai Joclhabhai Bar, the appellant before us, and ordering him to pay a gum of Rs. 500/- by way of costs to Vinod-charndra Jethalal Patel the respondent before us.2. The appellant (who will hereinafter be referred to as 'the petitioner') was an elector in the Deesa Legislative Assembly Constituency of Gujarat when the last general election was held in the month of February, 1962. The respondent was a candidate who had stood for election from the said constituency. On 2oth January, 1962, nomination papers were filed proposing the respondent as a candidate for the election. There were also filed four nomination papers, proposing the name of Jivrajbhai Kesarbhai Desai. There were also other nomination papers filed proposing the names of other candidates for the purpose of election. Scrutiny of the no...
Tag this Judgment!Bipinchandra Shantilal Bhatt Vs. Madhuriben Bhatt
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Guj250; (1963)0GLR890
ORDERM.R. Mody, J.1. This is one of those unfortunate matters in which a relentless and obdurate attitude has been adopted by the relations or friends advising the petitioner with a view to reducing the opponent-wife to an apparently helpless situation. The petitioner before me is the husband of the opponent. The marriage of the parties took place at Ahmedabad as far back as on December 6, 1945. After this marriage the petitioner and the opponent lived and cohabited together as husband and wife. It is the opponent's allegation that after her marriage the petitioner at times behaved like an insane person. The conduct of the petitioner from which the opponent came to such a conclusion was from instances of his breaking window-panes, of his attempt to break doors, quarrels, etc. According to her, his sense of discrimination between good and evil, right and wrong became less and less as time went on and ultimately vanished. In 1949 she went for her delivery to Bombay to her father's place ...
Tag this Judgment!Jayanti Luxman Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-21-1963
Reported in: 1964CriLJ86; (1964)GLR648
V.B. Raju, J.1. The charge was read over to the appellant and he pleaded not guilty. After some evidence was recorded he told the Magistrate that he was guilty. The learned Magistrate, thereupon, accepted the plea of guilty and convicted him thereupon without discussing the evidence. The stage of convicting an accused person on his plea of guilty comes when the charge is read over to the accused. If at that stage, the accused pleads not guilty, the learned Magistrate cannot convict him without recording evidence and without appreciating evidence which is recorded in the present case, the learned Magistrate was not right in accepting the plea of guilty at a subsequent stage. The accused person pleads to the charge, when the charge was read over he having pleaded not guilty, there is no case of further plea of the accused.2. Even on the evidence recorded, the complainant does not say that the milometre is of his scooter and there is no evidence to show that the milometre produced to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanbhai Ashabhai Patel Vs. Dabhi Ajitkumar Fulsinhji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Guj315
K.T. Desai, C.J.1. This is an appeal, from the decision of the Election Tribunal, Nadiad given on the 10th of September, 1962, setting aside the election of Ramanbhai Ashabhai Patel to the Gujarat Legislative Assembly from Uttarsanda constituency, Ramanbhai Ashabhai Patel, the appellant before us, who was the first respondent before the Election Tribunal, is hereinafter referred to as the Swatantra Party candidate'. The first respondent in this appeal Ajitkurnar Fulsinhji Dabhi who was the petitioner before the Election Tribunal, is hereinafter referred to as 'the Congress candidate'. The second respondent in this appeal Amarsinhji Bhupatsinhji Vaghela, who was the second respondent before the Election Tribunal, is hereinafter referred to as 'the Independent candidate.'2. On 13th January, 1962, a notification was issued under Section 15(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, directing that a general election be held for the purpose of constituting a new Legislative Assembly ...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Asmalbai W/O. Vora Mahamad Alli Vs. Esmailji Abdulali and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Guj174; (1964)0GLR678
V.B. Raju, J. 1. The appellant who was original defendant No. 1, is the widow of one Mahmadalli Ibrahimji who died on 8-10-1947. After his death, 5 persons filed a suit No. 31 of 1949 against 8 persons for administration of the properties of the deceased Mahmadalli Ibrahimji who was the uncle of defendant Nos. 1 to 5 (Sic) and maternal uncle of defendant Nos. 2 to 7. 2. The Civil Judge, J. D., Balasinar, granted a decree for administration and appointed a commissioner to work out of the partition of the properties of the deceased amongst his heirs. In appeal, the learned Assistant Judge at Nadiad dismissed the appeal with a slight variation ofthe decree passed by the lower court. The variation was that the administration should be in respect of 2/3rd of20 tolas of gold instead of 30 tolas of gold. The learnedAssistant Judge also upheld the finding of the trial court that the sale-deed of a house by the deceased Mahamadamexecuted by the deceased in favour of his wife defendant No. 1 was...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Madhavbhai Narottam
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Guj206; 1964CriLJ291; (1963)GLR886
Divan, J. 1-3. ***** 4. In this particular case, a question arises about the scope and applicability of the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and the further question as to when the presumption under that section can be said to have been rebutted has to be considered. That section provides as follows:- '4.(1) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 161 or Section 165 or 165-A of the Indian Penal Code it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain, for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that he accepted or oblained, or agree to accept or obtain, that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in the said Section 161, or, as the case may be without consideration or for a consid...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikhabhaijethabhai and ors. Vs. J.V. Vyas, Additional Collector and a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-07-1963
Reported in: (1963)4GLR873
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The petitioners are the owners of land bearing S. No. 339 and admeasuring 19 Acres and 38 Gunthas situate in village Vanesa Palsana Taluka Surat District. On 27th June 1939 the land was purported to be sold by the petitioners to one Ambelal Jaduram for the price of Rs. 1261/-. Though ostensibly a sale it was in reality a mortgage effected by the petitioners in favour of Ambelal Jaduram to secure an existing debt to the extent of Rs. 1261/-. Even after this transaction the possession of the land remained with the petitioners until 1945-46. It appears that the petitioners were unable to pay interest on the mortgage debt to Ambelal Jaduram and possession of the land was therefore handed over to Ambelal Jaduram in or about 1946-47. Ambelal Jaduram thereafter inducted the 2nd respondent on the land. According to the petitioners it was in July 1951 that the 2nd respondent was brought in as a tenant on the land by Ambelal Jaduram but this was disputed on behalf of the 2nd ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›