Gujarat Court December 1965 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.
Keshavlal Manordas Patel and ors. Vs. Atmaram Dajibhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-1965
Reported in: (1966)7GLR431
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The short question that arises in these Revision Applications is as to what is the period of limitation for an application to set aside an ex pane award under Section 36 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners in these Revision Applications filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 377 of 1946 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmedabad, for a declaration that a transaction relating to a field bearing Survey No. 121 situate in Vastrapur Village, City Taluka, Ahmedabad District, though ostensibly a sale was really a mortgage and for redemption of such mortgage. The transaction was effected by the ancestors of the petitioners and original opponent No. 6 in favour of Naranbhai Hirachand sometime in 1901 and the field forming the subject matter of the transaction was thereafter sold by Naranbhai Hirachand to the ancestor of Opponents Nos. 1 to 4 sometime in 1914. It appears that thereafter the re...
Motibhai Gopalbhai and ors. Vs. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-09-1965
Reported in: (1966)7GLR693
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This petition is directed against an order passed by the Revenue Tribunal setting aside an order made by the Prant Officer, Baroda, in appeal against an order of the Mamlatdar, Baroda, allowing the application of respondent No. 2 and declaring the transfer of certain lands by petitioner No. 1 in favour of petitioner No. 2 by way of partition as sham and bogus. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 was at all material times owner of three Survey Numbers, namely, 98, 99 and 103 situate in the Sim of village Savad, Baroda Taluka, Baroda District. The Second respondent was the protected tenant of petitioner No. 1 in respect of the said Survey Numbers In or about the beginning of July 1956, petitioner No. 1 transferred, the said Survey Numbers to petitioner No. 2 by way of partition by metes and bounds and an application was made to the Collector, Baroda, on 10th July 1956 to effect the necessary mutation in the Record of Rights. The...
Fazalbhai Amirbhai and anr. Vs. the Baroda Barough Municipality and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-1965
Reported in: (1966)7GLR367
J.M. Shelat, C.J.1. This is a petition for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for setting aside the ruling given-by respondent No. 2 as the President of the Baroda Borough Municipality disallowing a motion moved by the petitioners in a special general meeting convened on July 6, 1962 from being put to vote to that meeting, to direct the respondents to hold a meeting once again and to direct the second respondent to put the aforesaid motion to the vote of councillors. The facts leading to the petition may shortly be stated.2. The Baroda Borough Municipality is constituted under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, XVIII of 1925. In the year 1962 the second respondent was its duly elected president. On or about May 12, 1959 the Municipality published a scheme for disposal of certain lands belonging to it, being survey numbers 740, 733, 738 and 739 to certain classes of persons, namely, those belonging to the lower income group for the purpose of constructing residential house...
West India Cotton Association Ltd. Vs. V.K. C. Rao, Income-tax Officer ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-1965
Reported in: [1966]61ITR226(Guj)
Shelat, C.J.1. This is a petition for quashing and setting aside a notice under section 148 read with section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated July 18, 1964, in respect of the assessment year 1960-61, and for restraining the respondent-Income-tax Officer from taking any further proceedings thereunder. The petitioner also challenged another notice of the same date in respect of the assessment year 1961-62. But when the petition came up for admission before us, we issued a rule with regard only to the notice in respect of the assessment year 1960-61, and, therefore, we are no more concerned with the notice relating to the assessment year 1961-62.2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, its object being, inter alia, the promotion and protection of the interests of its members who deal in cotton and other allied commodities, the maintenance of uniformity in the said trade and the regulating and controlling of transactions in cotton and other ...
Gulabchand Bapalal Modi Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-1965
Reported in: (1966)7GLR712
J.M. Shelat, C.J.1. This is a petition for a writ of mandamus quashing the impugned notice dated December 31, 1959 issued by the Commissioner under Section 212(2) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 in respect of a structure standing on survey number 2919 belonging to the petitioner and situate in Khadia Ward No. 1 within the city limits of the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad. The impugned notice dated December 31, 1959 recited that the structure standing on the said survey number fell within the regular line of the street to the extent of 75 square yards and odd, that a notice dated June 16, 1958 under Section 212(1)(b) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to remove the said structure falling within the said road line had been served upon the petitioner and that no objections thereon were filed by the petitioner. The notice stated that pursuant to resolution No. 1181 dated October 15, 1959 of the Standing Committee of the Corporation, the aforesaid structure...
Bhaichandbhai Maganlal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-03-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Guj105; (1967)0GLR210
ORDER(1) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction order or writ for quashing and setting aside the election of the Councilors to the Municipality for the municipal district of Petlad held on 9th July, 1962 and directing respondents Nos. 1 and 2 namely, the State and the Collector to reconstitute the wards comprising the whole of the extended limits of the municipal district of Petlad and for a writ of quo warrantor or a writ in the nature of quo warrantor calling upon respondents Nos. 5 to 32 who are purported to be elected as Councilors at the election to state by what authority each of them claims to hold the office of a Councilor and restraining them from acting as such Councilors. The question arising in the petition is one of some importance, but it does not admit of much doubt or debate and is relatively simple and easy of solution. But before we proceed to state the question and deal with it, it is necessary ...
Acharya Shri Devendraprasadji Vasudeoprasadji Maharaj Pande Vs. sadhu ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-03-1965
Reported in: (1966)7GLR645
B.J. Divan, J.1. In each of these four Civil Revision Applications, the petitioner is the same individual and the respondent is also the same individual. These four Civil Revision Applications arise out of virtually the same order which was passed in two suits, which were consolidated before the trial Court and hence I will dispose of all these four Civil Revision Applications by this common judgment.2. In order to understand and appreciate the points involved in this group of matters, it is necessary to set out certain facts. One suit was filed as far back as March 1941, being Civil Suit No. 549 of 1941 in the. Court of the Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Ahmedabad. The present opponent who is the plaintiff in that suit filed the suit challenging an order passed by the defendant, the present petitioner, in each of these four matters, The order that was passed by the defendant was in his capacity as the Acharya of the particular sect to which the plaintiff and the defendant belonged declaring th...
Sumanlal Bhagwandas Kapadia Vs. Naginlal Bhagwandas Kapadia
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-02-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Guj87; (1967)0GLR386
(1) This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff -appellant in the Court of the Civil Judge (J.D.) Rajpipla, for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from putting up any construction in the southern wall of his house inter alia alleging that the said wall is of his exclusive ownership and that the defendant has no right to make use thereof in any manner. (2) The defendant-respondent resisted the suit inter alia contending that the suit wall is not of the exclusive ownership of the plaintiff but that it was their joint-wall and was to be treated as such. He has therefore, every right to make reasonable use thereof and that it would not cause any damage to that wall if the cement concrete boxing up to a small depth were constructed in this wall. (3) On the pleadings of the parties, the issues were raised by the trial Court and in its view the plaintiff failed to prove that the southern wall of his house was of his exclusive ownership and that i...
Koli Raja Sarwan and anr. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-01-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Guj239; 1966CriLJ1128; (1966)0GLR544
1. The appellants in these two appeals were accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in Sessions Case No. 4/65 in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar at Junagadh On trial before that Court they have been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, of an offence under Section 406 read with Section 34 I P. C. in respect of an alleged misappropriation of two sums of money one of Rs. 2700 and the other of Rs 466.62 in all Rs. 3166.62. committed in the year 1959. For that offence each of them has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs 1000A in default of payment of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. There was a separate conviction recorded against accused No 1 also for an offence under Section 406 I. P. C. in respecl of the sum of Rs 2700 A and a separate conviction recorded against accused No. 2 under Section 408 I. P C. for the sum of Rs 466.62 but no separate sentences in respect of those convictions were impose...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›