Gujarat Court September 1966 Judgments
Patel Jeshbhai Revendas and anr. Vs. Patel Narisnbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-30-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Guj101; (1968)9GLR579
(1) The suit from which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiffs-appellants in the Court of the Civil Judge (J.D.) at Anand for recovering possession of the suit filled bearing survey No. 1937/1 admeasuring 1 acre and 158/4 gunthas situated in the sim of Sarasa after redeeming the same on payment of the amount due under the mortgage deed dated 1st November 1925 passed in favour of the defendant by one Parshottam and for costs of the suit together with mense profits. ** ** **(5) Before we actually consider the points raised before this Court, it is essential to set out certain other and undisputed facts in this case. Parshottam Raghnath held certain properties in the then State of Baroda and had also a portion of land admeasuring 1 acre and 151/4 gunthas said to be a part of S. No. 1937 situated in the limits of the town of Sarsa in the then British Territory he was a resident of Baroda. Since he was unable to pay his debt, he had filed Insolvency Application No. 1/33-...
Tag this Judgment!Pragji Ranchhod Vs. Bai Monghi Wd/O Doongersi Dipchand
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-27-1966
Reported in: (1967)8GLR986
N.G. Shelat, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order pissed on 23rd October 1959 by Mr. S.L. Bapat, Third Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No. 175 of 1953 whereby the order passed by the Court of the Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Dholka in Darkhast No. 49 of 1952 came to be set aside and the Darkhast was remanded back to the Lower Court for proceeding further in accordance with law.2. Bai Monghi, widow of Doongersi Dipchand, the respondent, had filed Civil Suit No. 60 of 1943 against the appellant in the Court of the Civil Judge, (Junior Division) at Dholka, and obtained a decree in her favour on 28th April, 1948. By that decree the deed dated 23rd September 1942 said to have been passed by Bai Monghi in favour of the defendant in the suit was found to be nominal and not binding and that on her paying a sum of Rs. 1762-8-0 to the defendant, she was to get possession of the suit property from the defendant. She was also awarded costs of the suit, and for determination o...
Tag this Judgment!Minochar Pestonji Patel Vs. A.M. Amin
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-27-1966
Reported in: (1968)9GLR171
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These four petitions raise a short question as to whether a hotelier who sends his car to the station or airport for transport of his customers from the station or airport and vice versa without making any extra charge for such transport can be said to use his car for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward so as to make it a public service vehicle requiring permit under Section 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The petitioner is a hotelier having a hotel in Udwada which he runs in the name of Majestic Hotel. Udwada is a small town situate on the West Coast of India and it is a place of pilgrimage for Parsis for it is at that place that Parsis seeking refuge on the Indian soil from Muslim persecution in Iran, installed the sacred fire which they brought with them from Iran. Even to-day the self-same sacred fire burns in the temple at Udwada and to worship it come Parsis from all parts of India. Udwada is accessible by road as well as by rail but if one comes...
Tag this Judgment!J. Sarabhai and Company Vs. New Swadeshi Mills of Ahmedabad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-26-1966
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas753(Guj); (1967)0GLR345
1. This summons has been taken out by the applicants for a direction that the respondent company should pay to the applicants a sum of Rs. 39,619.87 under clause 6 of the scheme of arrangement or compromise sanctioned by this an over dated 6th December, 1962. Clause 6 of the scheme requires the respondent to pay to the employees (including workmen, clerks, technicians, officers, watch and ward staff) of the Bharathkhand Textile Manufacturing Company Limited, arrears of wages and claim of the applicants is that they were employees of the Bharathkhand Textile Manufacturing Company Limited for the period 21st January, 1961 to 31st March, 1962, and they are, therefore, entitled to recover from the respondent the sum of Rs. 39,619.87 representing the arrears of wages due to them from the Bharathkhand Textile Manufacturing Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as to company) for work done during the said period. The applicants are a partnership firm and hey were appointed as dalals by the...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Rayshi Hansraj Vs. Shah Khimji Mulji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-1966
Reported in: (1968)9GLR453
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The Short question which arises for determination in this petition is as what is the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction conferred on a Collector or Survey Officer under Section 37 Sub-section (2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. The determination of the question depends primarily on the construction of Section 37 Sub-section (2), but it is also necessary to refer to one or two other provisions of the Code for the purpose or arriving at the correct construction of Section 37 Sub-section (2). I will presently refer to the relevant provision of the Code having a bearing on the determination of the question but before I do so, it would be convenient to set out briefly the facts giving rise to the petition. The dispute in the petition relates to an open plot of land called Varandi situate in village Kundroli, Taluka Mundra, District Kutch. This plot of land was called Varandi as it was enclosed on all four sides and at all material times it belonged to the first r...
Tag this Judgment!Aher Samat Bhima Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-19-1966
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1717
V.B. Raju, J.1. The appellant, who was original accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1965, was convicted under a, 467 of the Penal Code. The case against him was that as the Secretary of a co-operative society he had received moneys on certain dates and in order to prevent the authorities from knowing that be had not credited the said moneys he prepared counter-foils on certain subsequent dates to show that the moneys had been received on those subsequent dates. To give an instance, he prepared a counter-foil of a receipt in respect of an amount of Rs. 300 as having been received on 9.2-1960, while the prosecution case is that in fact the money was not paid on 9-2.1960 but much earlier.2. Section 464 of the Penal Code, which relates to making false documents, so far as relevant, reads as follows:First -Who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signa, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mart denoting the execution of a document, with the intention of causing...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamadsarif Hakimji Chippa and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-16-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Guj269; (1967)8GLR418
Vakil, J.(1) This writ petition arises out of land acquisition proceedings, acquiring lands and structures thereon, falling with in the line of alignment for the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad in Jamalpur area of Ahmedabad City. The sixteen petitioners claim to be the tenants of structures, consisting of small shops and rooms. They are petty traders and artisans. Their case, as put forward in the petition, is that for the first time they came to know about the fact that the premises were being acquired under the Land Acquisition Act when they received notices dated the 3rd of June, 1961 from the taluka Magistrate under Section 47 of the Land Acquisition Act (herein after called the Act), calling upon them to surrender possession on the 30th of June 1961. It is alleged inter alia that they then came to know that without publishing the necessary notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the At in the locality or affixing them on the premises, the Land Acquisition Officer had passed and...
Tag this Judgment!Bhogilal Hargovandas Patel Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-16-1966
Reported in: (1967)8GLR64
V.B. Raju, J.1. The appellant was convicted under Section 16(1)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Section 7 of the said Act, for adultering Dhana Dal by applying colour to it which was not permitted under Rule 28 of the Rules. Under Rule 28, yellow coaltar dyes are permitted...namely Tartrazine and Sunset Yellow. These colours are prohibited only in the case of food other than the substances enumerated in Rule 29. But Dhana-Dal is a product of Dhana or coriander, which is a fruit, which is popularly known as seed. As Dhana Dal is a product of fruit, Rule 29 permits the use of any colour. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that the colour used was not one of the two colours permitted by Rule 28. The Public Analyst has not stated what colour was used. He has not stated that it was not Tartrazine or Sunset Yellow. He has mentioned that 'A yellow coaltar dye, which is not, permitted, is present'. The question whether particular coaltar dye is permitted or not is f...
Tag this Judgment!Amratlal Manilal Modi Vs. Cachraji Dalaji and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-1966
Reported in: (1967)8GLR429
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This petition raises an interesting question as to the scope and ambit of the power of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal to vacate an order made by it and to reopen the proceeding under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that its order was obtained by fraud practised upon it. The facts giving rise to the petition are few and may be briefly stated as follows. The petitioner was the owner of certain lands bearing Survey Nos. 512, 515 and 516 situate in the Sim of Kathwada Village, Dascroi Taluka, Ahmedabad District. The first respondent was the tenant of the petitioner in respect of the said lands on the tillers' day, namely, 1st April 1957 and the first respondent accordingly became the deemed purchaser of the said lands under Section 32 of the Act. Proceedings were thereafter commenced under Section 32G for determination of the purchase price of the said lands. The Agricultural Lands T...
Tag this Judgment!Bapubhai Lunvir Vs. R.B. Mehta, President, Guj. Revenue Tribunal and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-1966
Reported in: (1967)8GLR110
N.M. Miabhoy, C.J.1. Petitioner, Bapubhai Lunvir, first filed Special Civil Application No. 472 of 1962 against ten respondents. The first respondent is the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (hereafter called the Revenue Tribunal). The second respondent is the State of Gujarat. Respondents Nos. 3 to 10 were, at the material time, the tenants of petitioner. Subsequently, petitioner filed Special Civil Applications Nos. 618 to 624 of 1962, one against each of respondents Nos. 4 to 10 and joining the first two respondents also in each of those petitions as respondents Nos. 1 and 2. As a result of the filing of the eight writ petitions, petitioner has not paid the process fee for service on respondents Nos. 4 to 10 in the first writ petition. Therefore, the names of respondents Nos. 4 to 10 will have to be struck off in Special Civil Application No. 472 of 1962. The result is that, we have now a group of eight petitions in which petitioner Bapubhai Lunvir is the common petitioner and respondents No...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »