Gujarat Court October 1967 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.
Bai Sarda Vs. Patel Keshavlal Joitaram
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-07-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Guj150; (1968)GLR1040
A.D. Desai, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division. Vijapur, in Civil Suit No. 74 of 1964, ordering that the petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit should apply for obtaining a succession certificate and produce the same in the suit within 2 months from the date of the order.2. Short facts leading to this petition are that the opponent had borrowed on November 26, 1957 an amount of Rs. 1100 from one Bhurabhai alias Mohanlal Nihalchand who was the husband of the plaintiff. The opponent had executed a pro-note in favour of Bhurabhai Nihalchand which was produced in the suit at Ex. 31. Thereafter the opponent executed another pro-note on November, 4, 1960 for the amount of Rs. 1374/- in favour of the petitioner as guardian of her sons Ramesh, Mukesh and Mahesh. The consideration of this pro-note was the amount of previous loan of Rs. 1100/- advanced by Bhurabhai Nihalchand plus interest thereon. Thereafter the oppo...
Takhatsing Gulabsing Vs. Chandulal Shivlal Shah and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-04-1967
Reported in: (1968)9GLR987
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner against the opponents, praying that the order passed by the opponent No. 5, the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Modasa, Mr. H.P. Vora, in an Election Petition No. 1 of 1967, filed by the opponent No. 1 be set aside on the ground that the opponent No. 5 had no jurisdiction to entertain such election petition.2. The facts leading to this petition are briefly stated as under:The office of the Sarpanch of the Gram panchayat of Malpur fell vacant as the former Sarpanch was elected to Taluka Panchayat. In a meeting of the panchayat, held on 11-4-1967, the present petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of Malpur Gram panchayat. The opponent No. 1 had filed a nomination paper for standing as a candidate for the election of a Sarpanch of the said Gram panchayat. His nomination paper was rejected. The nomination paper of the present petitioner was accepted. He, being the only validly nomin...
Ramtahel Ramanand and ors. Vs. Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Prin ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-03-1967
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ46Guj
Bakshi, J.1. The petitioners filed an application under S. 78(1)A(e) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act against respondent 1, the Ahmedabad . (Calico Mills), Ahmedabad, to the second labour court, Ahmedabad, being Application No. 2005 of 1962 praying for a declaration that the respondent-company had committed an illegal change by contravening the terms of an award of the industrial court. The second labour court, Ahmedabad, dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioners could not be said to be employees of the respondent-company as defined by S. 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The petitioners, thereupon, filed an appeal to the industrial court, Ahmedabad from the order of the second labour court, being Appeal (I.C.) No. 123 of 1963. This appeal was heard by respondent 2 who dismissed the appeal by his order dated 5 February, 1964. As their appeal was dismissed by the industrial court, the petitioners have preferred the present petition whereby they...
Patel Mulchand Joitaram Vs. Bai Amthi W/O Patel Mulch and Joitaram and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-03-1967
Reported in: (1968)9GLR878
N.G. Shelat, J.1. A short yet an important point that arises to be considered in this revision application is as to whether in view of the reunion between the husband and wife established in the case, the order of maintenance stands exhausted itself and that the only remedy will be by obtaining a fresh order on a subsequent cause of action, or as to whether the order of maintenance passed under Section 488(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code stands until it is set aside under the provisions of the Code.2. The facts giving rise to this application in revision are that the opponent Bai Amthi, wife of Patel Mulchand Joitaram of Visnagar, obtained an order of maintenance under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Visnagar against her husband - the petitioner Patel Mulchand Joitaram. Some time after that order was passed, it appears that the panchas of their caste had collected at Unjha and the panchas had directed the petitioner-h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›