Gujarat Court April 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.
Saiyad Ali Ebrahim Vs. State and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Guj269; 1965CriLJ499
(1) The appellant in these appeals was convicted under section 420, I. P. Code for having taken money form the complainants of the prosecution case was that some companions of the accused told the complainants that the accused cold cure diseases, that he does not take money and that he spends money on charities. After the companions told them about the accuesed, the accused himself asked the complainants to give him whatever money they had. The complainants therefore parted willingly with the money believing what was told by the companions of the accused as to the powers of the accused. The money was parted with willingly. The accused himself did not make any representation to the complainants. What the companions of the accused told the complainants would not amount to a false representation . A false representation must relate to some fact that is either past or present. A statement purely affecting the future will not suffice. But the state of mind of a person may be a present fact....
Kantilal Chandulal Patwa Vs. Chhotelal Shankarlal Trevedi and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Guj29; (1964)0GLR288
ORDERV.B. Raju, J. 1. A pro-note was executed by one Ramanlal on behalf of the firm of Chandulal Chhaganlal. In a suit based on a pro-note filed against the two defendants, namely Ramantal Chandulal and Kantilal Chandulal, a decree was passed against both the defendants. The suit Was filed against the two defendants showing them as partners of the firm of Chandulal Chhaganlal. It is nowhere stated in the plaint that the firm was a Hindu joint family firm, but in the plaint the names of both the defendants were shown as psri-ners. The learned Judge, who decided the suit, did not go into the question whether the two defendants were partners of the firm, but he held that the shop running in the name of Chandulal Chhaganlal was a Hindu undivided family firm shop. This finding is not justified, because there is no averment in the plaint that the firm is a Hindu undivided family firm. Even if the firm consists of some coparceners of a Hindu undivided family, it does not become a Hindu undivi...
Bhulabhai Dahyabhai and anr. Vs. P.L. Gandhi and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-1963
Reported in: (1964)5GLR130
M.M. Miabhoy, J.1. This revision petition is directed against an appellate order dated 31st March 1959 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge at Surat in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 53 of 1958 which appeal was directed against an order dated 7th October 1958 passed below Ex. 194 which was an application made by second opponent herein raising a dispute regarding the debts claimed by the two petitioners. The question which is raised in the present petition is whether the Insolvency Court was prevented from considering the question about the acceptance of the debts of the petitioners by virtue of certain proceedings which had already taken place during the course of the insolvency proceedings and whether therefore the debts of the two petitioners had already been accepted by that Court which would entitle them to share in the distribution of the assets of the insolvent. The two lower Courts have taken different views. The Insolvency Court took the view that the debts of the petiti...
Bai Ganga Vs. Harijan Ghiman Shanker and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-05-1963
Reported in: 1965CriLJ387
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. In certain maintenance proceedings by the wife, the learned Magistrate, First Class, 1st Court, Broach, held that the divorce alleged by the husband was not proved. He also held that the alleged ill-treatment and cruelty alleged by the wife are not proved, and, therefore, he disallowed maintenance to the wife, although he allowed maintenance to the child Manhar. The learned Sessions Judge, Broach, Is of the opinion that the order is wrong and has made a reference to Set it aside and to award Rs. 10/- as maintenance to the wife. Under Section 488, Cr.P.C. a wife is entitled to maintenance if she proves that her husband having sufficient means neglected to refuse to maintain her. The question whether the husband having sufficient means neglected to maintain the wife was not considered by the learned Magistrate. It is true that Sub-section (1) of Section 488 Cr.P.C. is subject to the provisions of Sub-section (4) of the said section, which reads as follows:No wife sha...
Shah Hiralal Himatlal and ors. Vs. M.G. Pathak and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-01-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Guj26; (1964)0GLR327
ORDERV.B. Raju, J. 1. This revision application arises out of insolvency proceedings. After a firm of Gordhandas Bapubhai was declared insolvent, the receivers Rave an application stating that a sale deed executed by the Insolvent firm in favour of two persons, who are opponents Nos. 1 and 2 in those proceedings was nominal and fraudulent. The receivers also contended that opponents Nos. 1 and 2 paid the money 10 the insolvent firm for being paid to the partners of the firm who are opponents Nos. 3 to 6 in those proceedings. It was the case of the receivers that opponents Nos. 3 to 6 in those proceedings were partners of the insolvent firm. 2. After the receivers completed the evidence, the learned Judge passed an order stating that opponents Nos. 3 to 6 should lead their evidence first before opponents Nos. 1 and 2 were asked to lead their evidence. It is this order that is challenged in revision. It is contended in revision that opponents Nos. 1 and 2 should lead their evidence first...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›