Gujarat Court March 1965 Judgments
Bai Umiyabhen Vs. Ambalal Laxmidas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Guj139; (1965)GLR714
Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal raises a rather difficult question relating to construction of Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Some three years back this Court had occasion to observed in regard to this Act that it is a piece of legislation which is not noted for accurate or artistic draftsmanship and this is yet another occasion where we are constrained to make the same observation. The question of construction which arises is whether there is a right of second appeal from a decree passed by the District Court in appeal from a decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, in a proceeding for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Act. The question is a question of some importance because the effect of its decision would not be confined merely to a proceeding for judicial separation under Section 10 but would extend also to other proceedings under the Act. The appellant who is the original plaintiff filed a petition against the respondent, her husband, who is the origi...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Chhotabhai Bhauibhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-29-1965
Reported in: (1965)6GLR529
V.B. Raju, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a finding of the first appellate Court that the suit open land is of the ownership of the plaintiffs by reason of their adverse possession for more than sixty years and that it does not belong to the defendant namely the State of Bombay.2. No doubt the adequacy and sufficiency of evidence is always a question of fact and cannot be argued in second appeal. But whether user amounts to adverse possession is a question of law. It is also a question of law whether there is evidence of possession as distinguished from evidence of mere user. The concept of possession is an abstract one and it is not sufficient merely to prove user by tethering cattle as held in Framji Cursetji v. Goculdas Madhovji I.L.R. 16 Bombay 338 In that case in addition to tethering cattle some construction had also been made. But in spite of that it was held that the user by tethering cattle and the construction of a temporary structure would not amount to possession in ...
Tag this Judgment!Gohel Himatsingh Lakhaji Vs. Patel Motilal Garbardas and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-1965
Reported in: (1965)6GLR531
J.B. Mehta, J.1. This revision petition raises an interesting question as to whether an accused can appear as a lawyer for the co-accused.2. The short facts of this petition are as under; The petitioner Gohel Himatsingh Lakhaji is the complainant who has filed a complaint for defamation against six accused. The first four accused were the original accused in another criminal case No. 1798/ 1962 and at that time the complainant was examined as a witness. In that criminal case accused Nos. 3 and 6 had appeared for those four accused and had cross-examined the complainant. The complainant alleges that those questions which were put to him were defamatory and therefore he has filed the present complaint against the four accused and the two lawyers accused Nos. 5 and 6. Accused No. 5 Patel Rambhai Fakirbhai was the lawyer who had put these questions which are alleged to be defamatory and accused No. 6 Patel Kanubhai Jesangbhai was the other lawyer instructing accused No. 5. During the prese...
Tag this Judgment!Jagjivandas Bhikhabhai Vs. Gumanbhai Narattamdas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-25-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Guj1; (1965)GLR778
Bhagwati, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against a judgment given by Raju, J., in Second Appeal confirming a decree passed in appeal by the District Judge, Broach, dismissing a suit filed by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs.5,100 alleged to have been lent and advanced by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs.5,100 alleged to have been lent and advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant on 21st June 1949. The defendant had also according to the plaintiff, executed in favour of the plaintiff, an instrument in writing dated 21st June 1949 in respect of the loan but since in view of the plaintiff the instrument appeared to be a promissory note and on that view the instrument being unstamped would be inadmissible in evidence, the plaintiff sued on the original cause of action. The defendant admitted execution of the instrument but his defence was that no moneys were lent and advanced to him against the instrument on 21st June 1949. According to the defendant the instrument ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagivandas Bhikhabhai Vs. Gumanbhai Narottamdas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-25-1965
Reported in: (1965)6GLR778
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against a judgment given by Raju J. in Second Appeal confirming a decree passed in appeal by the District Judge Broach dismissing a suit filed by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs. 5 100 alleged to have been lent and advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant on 21st June 1949. The defendant had also according to the plaintiff executed in favour of the plaintiff an instrument in writing dated 21st June 1949 in respect of this loan but since in the view of the plaintiff the instrument appeared to be a promissory note and on that view the instrument being unstamped would be inadmissible in evidence the plaintiff sued on the original cause of action. The defendant admitted execution of the instrument but his defence was that no moneys were lent and advanced to him against the instrument on 21 June 1949. According to the defendant the instrument though dated 21 June 1949 was actually executed on 14th June 1949 and the circumstan...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bombay Vs. Chatrabhuj Nenshi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Guj185; (1965)GLR869
Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order made by the District Judge, Kutch, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 1 of 1958 awarding a total compensation of Rs. 1,20,094-8-0 to the respondent for acquisi-tion of a piece of land hearing Survey No. 910 situate on the Bhachau Rahapar Road in Kutch District. The land belonged to the respondent which is a Limited Company carrying on busi-ness inter alia of ginning cotton and it was taken possession of by the Government of Kutch on 19th November 1949 under an arrangement that some other land suitable for the requirements of the respondent would be given by the Government of Kutch to the respondent in exchange for the land so taken over. At this time the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was in force in Kutch but no notification under Section 4(1) was issued by the Government of Kutch in respect of the land and no proceedings were adopted under the Act for acquisition of the land. The possession of the land was taken by the Government of...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Nair (S.P.)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-1965
Reported in: (1965)6GLR546; (1965)ILLJ528Guj
1. This appeal is filed by the State of Gujarat against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Veraval, acquitting the accused of the offence under S. 92 of the Factories Act. The accused is a factor manager of the Indian Rayon Corporation, Ltd., and the factory is situated at Veraval. The case of the prosecution is that on 6 January, 1964 one worker K. Parmeshwaran Pillai was working on the shredder machine as a paid apprentice operator. The shredder machine is working continuously. The speed of the common shaft of the screw conveyer and the shredder is about 150 revolutions per minute. The diameter of the hole in the shredder at the bottom side is about 8 inches and the screw conveyor worms are situate just near the hole which is at a height of about 2 feet from the flour level so as to be easily accessible to the worker's hand. This hole was covered by a flange with two nuts which in that position serves as a guard to the running screw conveyor worms. The duty of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Parshottam Veribhai Patel and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Guj102; (1965)GLR505
Mehta J.1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ or order to quash the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1891 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioners are owners of the various lands admeasuring 8 Acres and 34 Gunthas situate in village Gorwa in Baroda Taluka. By an application, dated August 29, 1959, respondent No. 2. the Alembic Chemical Works Company Limited, Baroda, applied to the Collector of Baroda to acquire those lands of the petitioners for the development of the company by setting up new divisions under the name of 'Alnish-Hompro'. A notification under Section 4. dated March 31, I960, was issued by the State Government, as it appeared to respondent No. I that the said lands were likely to he needed For the purposes of the company viz the Alembic Chemical Works Co., Ltd., Baroda. After the inquiry as the Government was satisfied that the acquisi...
Tag this Judgment!Diwali D/O Bechar Raghunath (Decd. by Her Heirs) and anr. Vs. Mohanbaw ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-1965
Reported in: (1965)6GLR502
V.B. Raju, J.1. The appellant was the original plaintiff. Her suit for maintenance was allowed by the trial Court but dismissed by the first appellate Court on the ground that although her predecessor-in-title Parbat Bechar had mortgaged the property in question to Hargovan Rughnath the doctrine of part performance enunciated in Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act applied because there was an unregistered document of sale dated 1918 A.D. which was subsequent to the mortgages. The learned Judge held that in view of the doctrine of part performance the plaintiff was not entitled to redeem the mortgages executed by her predecessor-in-title. He held that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the principle enunciated in Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and he therefore dismissed the plaintiffs suit.2. The Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on Tribhovan Hargovan v. Shanker Desai 45 Bom. L.R. 866 which was a decision of a single Judge. He held that in th...
Tag this Judgment!Phirojshah Pestonji Contractor Vs. Ramnath Janarda, Prabhu and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1965
Reported in: (1965)6GLR477
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These four appeals arise out of an application made by the Official Liquidator of the Bombay Baroda Assurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) against its former Officers under Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act 1913 and Section 543 of the Companies Act 1956 The Company was incorporated under the Baroda Companies Act and carried on business of life insurance with its Head Office at Baroda and branches in Bombay and Indore. Opponent No. 1 was at all material times the Manager of the Bombay Office; Opponent No. 2 was the General Manager and Opponents Nos. 3 to 5 were the Directors of the Company. As the financial position of the Company was unsatisfactory the Controller of Insurance presented a petition for winding up the Company in the District Court Baroda. In the petition an application was made for appointment of a provisional Liquidator and on the application a provisional Liquidator was appointed by the District Court on 28th April 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »