Gujarat Court July 1963 Judgments
Shah Jashwantlal Manilal Vs. Bai Kamala and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-31-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Guj69; (1963)GLR1017
(1) This appeal arises out of the dismissal for default of an execution application presented by the applicant. The order dismissing the application for execution of default of the appearance of the decree-holder must beset aside. There is no provision for dismissing such an application for default. Order 21, Rules 10 to 23 C.P. Code deal with 'application for execution'. Order 21 Rules 24 to 25 deals with 'process' for execution '. O.21 Rule 26 to 29 deal with 'stay of execution'. The following rules of O.21, C.P. Code dealt with the mode of execution. Rule 11 of order 21.C.P.Code deals with oral and written applications by the decree-holder for execution of the decree for execution of the decree passed. It is not necessary to refer to Order 21, Rules 12,13,14,15 and 16,C.P.Code as they dealtwith special subjects. Order 21,Rule17 deals with the procedure on receiving application for execution of decree, and reads as follows:'(1) On receiving an application for the execution of a decre...
Tag this Judgment!Jashwantlal Manilal Shah Vs. Bai Kamala D/O. Balabhai Chhaganlal Decea ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-31-1963
Reported in: (1963)4GLR1017
V.B. Raju, J.1. This appeal arises out of the dismissal for default of an execution application presented by the appellant. The order dismissing the application for execution for default of the appearance of the decree holder must be set aside. There is no provision for dismissing such an application for default. Order 21 Rules 10 to 23 C.P. Code deal with application for execution. Order 21 Rules 24 and 25 deal with process for execution. Order 21 Rules 26 to 29 deal with stay of execution. The following rules of Order 21 C.P.Code deal with the mode of execution. Rule 11 of Order 21 C.P.Code deals with oral and written applications by the decree-holder for execution of the decree passed. It is not necessary to refer to Order 21 Rules 12 13 14 15 and 16 C.P.Code as they deal with special subjects. Order 21 Rule 17 deals with the procedure on receiving application for execution of decree and reads as follows:(1) On receiving an application for the execution of a decree as provided by Ru...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Raojibhai Kalidas Vs. State of Gujarat Sachivalaya, Ahmedabad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Guj51
ORDER No. DTM 1762/L where as it was brought to the notice of the Government of Gujarat that Shri Ravjibhai Kalidas Patel, President, Anand Municipality, Anand (hereinafter referred to as 'the President') has, in his capacity as the President, 1. Never allowed the Vice-president to carry out routine work as per rule 77. 2. Moved Government and consulting surveyor to Government for several changes in the Town Planning Scheme without the consent of the Municipality in its general meeting. 3. Withdrawn the authorisation on his own authority although the councillors Shri F.J. Patel and Shri V.P. Gandhi were authorised by the Municipality in its general meeting to take steps for expeditious execution of the drainage scheme. 4. Moved Government to change the site of the slaughter house without the consent of the Municipality in its general meeting though the previous site was approved by the Municipality. 5. On his own authority imposed and recovered fine and confiscated the goods of the dea...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Yeshwant Maganlal Vs. Trustees of Trust Shah Maganlal Khushaldas ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-25-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Guj126
V.B. Raju, J. 1. The learned counsel for the appellant has given an application to convert this first appeal into an appeal from order. The learned counsel for the respondents have no objection, and hence this appeal is treated as an appeal from order.2. The appeal is against the order of the lower court rejecting an application to set aside the Court sale held in Darkhast No. 156/50 in jurisdiction Suit No. 230 47 to recover mortgage money. The contentions of the judgment-debtor contained in that application were all rejected by the lower Court, and they are re-argued in this appeal. The first is that the property was purchased by a person who had acted as a Panch at the time of the valuation at the property. It is, therefore, contendedthat under Order 21, Rule 73, C. P. Code, the sale is vitiated. Order 21, Rule 73, C. P. Code reads as follows:--'No officer of other person having any duty to perform in connection with any sale shall, either directly of indirectly, bid for, acquire or...
Tag this Judgment!Kantilal Mathurdas Parikh and ors. Vs. the Village Panchayat of Shivra ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-25-1963
Reported in: (1963)4GLR929
J.M. Shelat, C.J.1. This is a petition for a writ of quo warranto or any other appropriate writ for setting aside and quashing the election held in June 1962 of the first respondent Panchayat and also for setting aside the election to the posts of the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch of the first respondent Panchayat.Prior to January 3 1946 the entire village of Shivrajpur including what is known as Shivrajpur mines area was notified as one village within the meaning of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act IV of 1933 by a notification dated December 28 1945 and published in the Bombay Government Gazette issued on January 3 1946 The two areas were separated and declared as two distinct villages with separate Panchayats. we are concerned in this petition with the village called Shivrajpur Village Site as distinct from the village called Shivrajpur Mines Village. The term of the first respondent Panchayat expired on June 30 1962 and therefore arrangement for a fresh election had to be made. Conseque...
Tag this Judgment!Jamnadas Jethanand Vs. Shri Ram Aiyar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-23-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Guj102; (1963)GLR897
Shelat, C.J.1. This is an application for a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, for quashing the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmadabad, dated January 7, 1963, refusing to renew the petitioner's licence and ordering him to close down the restaurant which he is at present conducting. 2. The facts leading to the present application are few and simple. On November 30, 1963, the police raided the petitioner's restaurant and in the course of that raid, found a large quantity of illicit liquor kept in the terrace of the hotel building where the petitioner was conducting his restaurant. During the course of the raid, the police discovered two facts -- (1) that one Girdharilal Maganlal was found in the terrace and the police arrested him, presumably on the ground of being in the possession of illicit liquor, and (2) that one Chaithram Hiranand, the nephew of the petitioner, was found at the counter and in charge of the restaurant, the petitioner being then ...
Tag this Judgment!Colaba Land and Mill Co. Ltd. Vs. Vasant Investment Corporation Ltd. a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-12-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Guj107; (1963)GLR911
ORDERN.M. Miabhoy, J.1. This is a petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (No. 1 of 1956) (hereafter called 'the Act') by the Colaba Land and Mills Company Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1866, and having Its registered office at Bombay thereafter called 'the petitioner Company') against the Vasant Investment Corporation Limited, a company Incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1866, and having its registered office at Ahmedabad (hereafter called 'the respondent Company') and ten other respondents. Respondents Nos. 2 to 9 were at the time of the presentation of the petition, the Directors of the respondent Company. Respondents Nos. 10 and 11 are the shareholders of that Company. They have been joined in the petition for themselves and also for and on behalf of the shareholders of the respondent Company other than respondents Nos. 2 to 9. The petitioner Company admittedly is a shareholder of the respondent Company holding ...
Tag this Judgment!ishwarlal Kasanji Naik Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-11-1963
Reported in: (1963)GLR945
Shelat, C.J. 1. These three orders have been challenged on various grounds which, as aforesaid, have been taken by the respective petitioners in their petitions. As aforesaid, in Special Civil Application No. 827 of 1961, the petitioner therein has raised certain additional grounds which we will deal separately. The first ground amongst the several grounds common to these three petitions is that the three impugned orders have been passed mala fide and are therefore, invalid. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 604 of 1961 has alleged (1) that the order impugned by him is mala fide because it has been passed to circumvent the orders passed in his favour in the aforesaid suit filed by him against the respondent, (2) to bring pressure against him for obtaining the said order from the civil Court, (3) that the impugned order was passed at a time when the aforesaid suit had become ripe for hearing, and (4) to deprive him of the possible fruits of the result of the aforesaid s...
Tag this Judgment!Hasmukhbhai Manmohandas Patel Vs. Punamchand Kalidas and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-10-1963
Reported in: (1964)5GLR13
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. This revision application raises an interesting question relating to the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. The facts giving rise to this revision application may be briefly stated at first. One Hasmukhbhai Manmohandas Patel filed Special Jurisdiction Darkhast No. 4 of 1953 in the Court of the then learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ahmedabad for execution of a final partition decree. All the properties except one ordered to be partitioned were situated in the city of Ahmedabad. That one property was situated in a village of the District of Ahmedabad and thus was within the ordinary jurisdiction of the then learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ahmedabad. Whilst this darkhast was pending The Ahmedabad City Courts Act 1961 Gujarat Act No. XIX of 1961 (hereafter called the Act) was passed on the 15th of May 1961 and on 4th of November 1961 the City Civil Court (here after called the City Court) was established by the State of Gujarat for the city of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›