Gujarat Court January 1964 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.
Joshi Kantilal Vadilal and anr. Vs. Mehta Girdharlal Dayaram and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-30-1964
Reported in: (1965)6GLR381
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is a First Appeal against the order of the District Judge Mehsana dismissing the plaintiffs suit for the removal of defendant No. 3 as trustee of the Sidhnath Mahadeo at Visnagar and for directions relating to accounts. The prayer for directions was ultimately not pressed and there remained only the question of removal of defendant No. 3 as a trustee. The ground alleged in the complaint was that he was of immoral character. It was not alleged in the complaint that there was any breach of public trust on his part. The suit was filed under Section 50 of the Bombay. Public Trusts Act 1950 That section allows a suit to be filed in three cases: one of which is when it is alleged that there was a breach of public trust. The second is when a declaration is necessary that a particular property belongs to a public trust or whether a direction is required to recover the possession of such property etc.2. The third condition precedent is that the direction of the court is dee...
The State Vs. Amrutlal Prabhudas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Guj248; 1964CriLJ548; (1964)GLR1059
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad (Rural). The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhandhuka, felt at a very late stage of a trial that he had no territorial; jurisdiction to try a complaint which was under Sections 175 and 204, Indian Penal Code. He therefore ordered that the complaint should be returned to the complainant. The learned Sessions Judge seems to have thought that to such a case Section 201, Cr. P. C. would not apply and that the-proper section to be applied is section 346, Cr. P. C., under which, the Magistrate has to send a complaint to another Magistrate. On the point whether Section 346, Cr. Pro. Code would apply to a case where a Magistrate feels that he has no territorial jurisdiction, the Calcutta High Court has taken one view and the Madras and Kerala High Courts have taken another view (Vide Amrendra Nath v. Raghu Nath Nandan : AIR1952Cal849 District Magistrate of Cuddapah v. Abdul Kareem : AIR1943Mad526 , and State...
Kajaji Ramji Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-20-1964
Reported in: 1966CriLJ331
V.B. Raju, J.1. The appellant was convicted under Section 19(e) and (f) of the Indian Arms Act, and this conviction is challenged in appeal. The prosecution case was that on 2-8-1982, on suspicion the police searched certain persons in the compound of the Courts of the City Magistrates, Ahmedabad, and the appellant was found in possession of five live cartridges on his person. A Panchnama was made, In appeal, it is contended that one of the Panchas does not support the prosecution and according to him nothing was found from the appellant. It is contended that the evidence of the second Panch that five live cartridges were found from the appellant is hearsay evidence because the second Panch has deposed that the police told him that five cartridges were found from the appellant. The panchnama was read over to this witness Navinchandra and he admitted having signed it and that the contents are correct. But he added that he stated that the cartridges were found from the appellant as he wa...
Pandya Manubhai Muljibhai Alias Himatlal Vs. the Umreth Town Municipal ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-20-1964
Reported in: (1964)5GLR1026
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The short but interesting question of law that arises in this Second Appeal is whether a member of the public is entitled without proof of special damage to maintain an action for removal of an encroachment on a public street without obtaining the consent of the Advocate General under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs are Patidars residing in the town of Umreth and are Managers of a Dharamshala belonging to the Patidar community, which abuts on a public street situate in what is known as Bordi Falia in Umreth. According to the plaintiffs since times immemorial the Patidars of the town of Umreth have been taking their carts along the said public street and using the said public street for passing and repassing. On 6th September 1954 however defendant No. 2 who owns a house with its back abutting on the said public street obtained the permission of defendant No. 1 being the Municipality for the town of Umreth and after obtaining such permission...
State of Gujarat Vs. Rameshbhai Parmanand Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-1964
Reported in: (1966)7GLR439
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent Rameshbhai in Criminal Case No. 370 of 1962. The charge against the respondent was that on 12-1-61 in the course of the trial of Special Case No. 6/60 in the Court of Special Judge, Ahmedabad, against police constable Ramchandra he had stated in evidence as per the sheet annexed with the charge. The sheet annexed with the charge runs into two typed pages consisting of about 50 sentences. A charge of giving false evidence cannot comprise so many statements. A person can be charged for giving false evidence regarding a particular statement in his deposition. A charge which consists of an allegation that he made 100 false statements would amount to a charge of 100 offences. Under Section 234, Cr.P.C. an accused person can be charged at one trial for any number of offences not exceeding three of the same kind committed within the space of 12 months whether in respect of the same person or not. Under Sect...
State of Gujarat Vs. Hemang Pramesh Rai Desai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-1964
Reported in: 1966CriLJ474; (1966)7GLR595
V.B. Raju, J.1. I find that in this case the learned Magistrate has called for the whole record of another case and has actually exhibited the original depositions given by the Punches in the previous Special Case No. 6 of 1980. The learned Magistrate has ignored the instructions contained in Rule 34 in Chapter II of the Bombay High Court Criminal Manual, 1960. Original depositions in other cases should not be marked as Exhibits unless it is very necessary to do so. Ordinarily, certified copies of depositions would serve the purpose and original re-cord should not be sent for. The instructions of the High Court contained in Rule 34 in Chap. II of the Bombay High Court Criminal Manual, 1960, should be strictly followed by the Magistrates.2. For the reasons given in my judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1963 this appeal against the acquittal of the second Panch is dismissed. According to the prosecution both the Panchas were present at the time of the panchnama and both of them gave f...
Aher Harsur Desa Vs. Pinjar Jhina Golan and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-14-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Guj249
B.J. Divan, J.1. The petitioner in this case is a cultivator and he was cultivating land admeasuring 3 acres and 8 gunthas in Rampara village in Rajula Mahal of Amreli District. This land belonged to original opponents Nos. 1 and 2, who were the Barkhalidars in respect of this plot of land. The contention of the petitioner is that the Barkhalidars had leased the land in question to the petitioner and the transaction was effected by a document, dated June 28, 1951 and the transaction was referred to in the document as that of 'Ogha-Chhut'. Under the Barkhali Abolition Act, 1951, enacted by the then Saurashtra Government, provision was made not giving occupancy rights to tenants. The word 'tenant' was defined to include all persons lawfully cultivating the land but excluded from its purview a person who was a mortgagee-with-possession. Under the provisions of the Barkhali Abolition Act, the petitioner applied for an occupancy certificate in the prescribed form. This application was decid...
Chanda Wd/O. Manjulal Vadilal and ors. Vs. Ramanlal Manjulal Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-13-1964
Reported in: (1964)5GLR531
P.M. Bhagwati, J.1. The short question that arises on this appeal is whether the Court hearing an application under the Indian Lunacy Act 1912 can make an order under Section 41 requiring the alleged lunatic to attend for the purpose of being personally examined by the Court before making an order of inquisition under Section 38 or Section 62. The respondent in this appeal made an application to the City Civil Court Ahmedabad under Section 62 for declaring his brother Devendra Manjulal a lunatic an the ground that the latter was of unsound mind and incapable of managing himself and his affairs. On the application a notice was issued to Devendra Manjulal but he did not appear. Instead the mother and other brothers of Devendra Manjulal appeared and filed objections contending that the application was not bona fide and that Devendra Manjulal was neither of unsound mind nor incapable of managing himself and his affairs. The respondent thereupon preferred an application to the Court for per...
State of Gujarat Vs. Gandhi Jayantilal Sankalchand
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-11-1964
Reported in: 1966CriLJ475; (1964)GLR696
M.U. Shah, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Himat-nagar, acquitting the original accused of an offence under Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. The prosecution case, shortly stated is that on 18th April 1960 at about 2 p. m. the respondent Gandhi Jayantilal Sakalcband (who will here after be referred to as ''the accused') was going in a touring car BYA No. 239 to the bazaar in Modasa. Mr. Narsi-bhai Karsanbbai Pate], who was Food Inspector of the Modasa Municipality, stopped the car while it was passing near the municipal office. The Food Inspector called the punches and, in the presence of the punches, the car was searched and 10 tins of ghee were found in the car. The Food Inspector, thereafter, gave requisite written intimation to the accused of his intention to take the sample of ghee for analysis by the Public Analyst, purchased 3/4 seer of ghee an...
Bai Kailas Gouri Wd/O Ishwarlal Ranchhodlal Vs. Patel Shanabhai Nathab ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-10-1964
Reported in: (1965)6GLR328
V.B. Raju, J.1. An application of the judgment-debtor objecting to the sale of certain property was dismissed by the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division Baroda as not maintainable on the ground that the application is made long after the property was attached. In appeal it is urged that this order of the lower Court is wrong and that the judgment-debtor raised the objection to the attachment of the property within two months of her coming to know of the attachment when a notice under Order 21 Rule 66 C.P. Code was served on the appellant. This notice was served on 11 and the application was given in March 1961. But according to the Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 the attachment was made on 11 It is also conceded by him that an order prohibiting the judgment-debtor from transfering the property as provided in Order 21 Rule 54 C.P. Code was not served on the judgment-debtor. But he relied on Karan Singh v. Ram Sahai : AIR1941All41 and says that it is not necessary to inform the judgme...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »