Gujarat Court July 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.
Firm Mystery Rajibhai Savjibhai and Bros. and anr. Vs. State of Gujara ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-13-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Guj111
Bhagwati, J.(1) The main question arising in this petition is for all practical purposes concluded by a decision of the Supreme Court and but for the unbounded optimism and enthusiasm of Mr. V.J. Desai, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, it is difficult to see how the petition should have gone on. The petition challenges the vires of S. 85 of the Factories Act, 1948, and also the validity of a certain Notification issued by the State Government under that Section on certain grounds which are all without substance but in order to understand the grounds it is necessary to state briefly the facts giving rise to the petition.(2) The petitioners are a partnership firm carrying on business of preparing and selling furniture in Houses Nos. 875 and 876 at PHJ Bhagol in Nadiad. The business of the petitioners consists of four departments, namely Bandsaw Section, Kharadi Section, Furniture Section and Polishing Section and in each department the number of persons working is less than twenty...
Kabhai Pahadsing and anr. Vs. Bhupat Lallu (Minor as Heir and Legal Re ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-13-1965
Reported in: (1966)7GLR421
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. Two questions arise for decision in this second appeal. The first question is as to whether the will, dated 10th March 1950, was or was not executed in accordance with the requirements of law. The second question is as to whether the learned first appellate Judge had applied the correct principles of law for the purpose of satisfying his conscience that the aforesaid document was the will of the testatrix.2. The facts necessary to be mentioned in order to dispose of the aforesaid two questions are as follows. It is an admitted fact that the suit properties belonged to one Jivi. Jivi died on 13th March 1950. Both the lower Courts have found that plaintiffs, who are appellants, are the nearest heirs of Bai Jivi and as such were entitled to inherit her properties. The original defendant No. 1 was the son of a maternal uncle of Bai Jivi. He propounded a will, dated 0th March 1950, by which he was constituted the sole legatee to the estate of Bai Jivi. It appears that Bai...
Lalji Haridas Vs. Mulji Manilal Kamdar and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-09-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Guj159; (1965)GLR855
1. The original plaintiff has filed this appeal against the dismissal of his suit by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Halar at Jamnagar, on the ground 'that a suit for declaration that a person is a Benamidar was not maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.2. The plaintiff had originally filed the suit against eight defendants. Defendants 1 and 2 were individuals who were partners of two firms which were joined as defendant No. 3 and defendant No. 4 and which firms had also some other unknown partners. Defendants Nos. 5 to 8 were Income-tax Officers The Union of India was added as a necessary party to the suit on 10th January 1948 pursuant to the order of the trial Court, dated 5th November 1957, to enable the Court to completely and effectively adjudicate the questions raised in the suit It was the plaintiff's case that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the two firms, defendants Nos. 3 and 4 had been residing at Bombay and doing business there while he resided at Ja...
Lalji Haridas Vs. Mulji Manilal Kamdar, Partner of M/S. Mulji Tulsidas ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-09-1965
Reported in: (1965)6GLR855
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The original plaintiff has filed this appeal against the dismissal of his suit by the Civil Judge Senior Division Halar at Jamnagar on the ground that a suit for declaration that a person is a Benamidar was not maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.2. The plaintiff had originally filed the suit against eight defendants. Defendants 1 and 2 were individuals who were partners of two firms which were joined as defendant No. 3 and defendant No. 4 and which firms had also some other unknown partners. Defendants No. 5 to 8 were Income-tax Officers. The Union of India was added as a necessary party to the suit on 10th January 1958 pursuant to the order of the trial Court dated 5 th November 1957 to enable the Court to completely and effectively adjudicate the questions raised in the suit. It was the plaintiffs case that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the two firms defendants Nos. 3 and 4 had been residing at Bombay and doing business there while he resid...
Bai Mangu Vs. Bai Viji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-07-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Guj81; (1965)GLR915
(1) This Second Appeal is directed against the decision dated 10th December 1957 recorded by the learned District Judge, Broach, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1957. The facts necessary to be stated in order to understand the disputes between the parties may be stated at first. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the sisters of the husband of plaintiff. Plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 105 of 1954 against defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for partition of certain properties mentioned in the plaint of the suit and separate possession of her 1/2 share therein. Defendant No. 3 was joined as a party because defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had mortgaged some of the aforesaid suit properties with him. The suit ended in a compromise and a consent decree, of which Ex. 23 is a certified copy, was passed on 25th of July 1955. By this decree plaintiff was made the exclusive owner of lot No. `B' in that suit and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were made exclusive owners of lot No. `C' therein. A latrine which was lot No. `D' w...
Mangu D/O. Bahar Mahar Vs. Vijli D/O. Bartabhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-07-1965
Reported in: (1965)6GLR915
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. This Second Appeal is directed against the decision dated 10th December 1957 recorded by the learned District Judge Broach in Regular Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1957. The facts necessary to be stated in order to understand the disputes between the parties may be stated at first. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the sisters of the husband of plaintiff. Plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 105 of 1954 against defendants Nos. 1 2 and 3 for partition of certain properties mentioned in the plaint of that suit and separate possession of her 1/2 share therein. Defendant No. 3 was joined as a party because defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had mortgaged some of the aforesaid suit properties with him. The suit ended in a compromise and a consent decree of which Ex. 23 is a certified copy was passed on 26 of July 1955. By this decree plaintiff was made the exclusive owner of lot No. B in that suit and defendants No. 1 and 2 were made exclusive owners of lot No. C therein. A latrine which was lot No. D...
Mohanlal Khushalbhai and ors. Vs. Yakubkhan Pirkhan and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-06-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Guj46; (1965)GLR817
(1) This is a Second Appeal by the heirs of the original defendant, one Khushaldas Makandas. Respondents Yakubhan Pirkhan and Parshottam Gopal were plaintiffs who brought Regular Civil Suit No. 44 of 1954 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vyara, from out of which this Second Appeal arises. The main question which requires to be decided in the present appeal is whether S. 65 of the Indian Contract Act is or is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Those facts may be stated at first. On 17th September 1948, Yakubkhan, plaintiff No. 1 executed a Khata for Rs. 2,701 in favour of Kushaldas, defendant. The parties were the residents of Vyara, which was then a part of the former Baroda State. After the State merged with the State of Bombay, the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Relief Act') was applied to the aforesaid territory sometime in 1950. Thereafter, Khushaldas made an application under the Relief Act for adjustme...
Mohanlal Khushalbhai and ors. Vs. Yakubkhan Pirkhan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-06-1965
Reported in: (1965)6GLR817
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. This is a Second Appeal by the heirs of the original defendant, one Khushaldas Makandas. Respondents Yakubkhan Pirkhan and Parshottam Gopal were plaintiffs who brought Regular Civil Suit No. 44 of 1954 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vyara, from out of which this Second Appeal arises. The main question which requires to be decided in the present appeal is whether Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act is or is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Those facts may be stated at first. On 17th September 1948, Yakubkhan, plaintiff No. 1, executed a Khata for Rs. 2,701/- in favour of Khushaldas, defendant. The parties were the resident of Vyara, which was then a part of the former Baroda State. After that State merged with the State of Bombay, the Bombay Agricultural Debtors* Relief Act, 1947, (hereafter called 'the Relief Act') was applied to the aforesaid territory sometime in 1950. Thereafter, Khushaldas made an application under th...
Chhaganram Nathuram Pandya and anr. Vs. Naginlal Sampatram and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-02-1965
Reported in: (1966)7GLR993
J.B. Mehta, J.1. These three appeals arise from the same judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Broach, in the plaintiffs' suit in which they had challenged certain alienations and gifts which were made by the deceased widow Bai Suraj.2. The properties in question belonged to one Ishvar Narottam Pandya of village Dora in Amod Taluka. The said Ishvar Narottam died in about Samvat Year 1960-61 i. e. about 1905 A. D. leaving behind him his widow Bai Suraj, without any issue. Consequently, Bai Suraj got only a widow's estate in the properties in question. The plaintiffs alleged they were the reversioners and their geneological table was given which is undisputed us and which was as under: Narbheram | ------------------------------------------------- | | Ambaram Narottam-Bai Jamna | -------------------------------- | | | | Nathuram Ranchhod Ishvar-Bai Suraj |Bai Jivi |------------- |Ganpat | | |Garbad Chhaganaram Motiram |(Plff.No. 1) (Plff.No. 2) Bai Amba- | Natvar...
Babulal Pitambardas Gandhi Vs. Bai Mani Wd/O Prahladbha1 Barot and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-01-1965
Reported in: (1965)6GLR823
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The petitioner was the owner of several lands bearing Survey Nos. 39/1 263 1404 1407 1408 1639 and 1640 situate in village Sathod Taluka Dabhoi District Baroda. The aggregate assessment in respect of the lands amounted to Rs. 85/-. One Prahladbhai Barot the husband of the first respondent was a tenant of the petitioner in respect of the lands paying an aggregate rent of Rs. 283-50 in accordance with the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On the tillers day that is 1 April 1957 Prahladbhai Barot admittedly became the deemed owner of the lands and the question arose as to what should be the purchase price payable by Prahladbhai Barot to the petitioner. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal accordingly issued notices to the parties and held an inquiry for the purpose of determining the purchase price of the lands under Section 32G of the Act and after hearing the parties made an order fix...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›