Gujarat Court November 1967 Judgments
Harivallabh Chhotalal Nagori Vs. Ahmedali Rajabhai Kadiani
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-30-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Guj145; (1969)GLR481
N.G. Shelat, J.1-4. * * * *5. The contention made out by Mr. Hathi, the learned advocate for the appellant is that the mortgage transaction was 'quite an independent one and whatever the amount was advanced thereunder was advanced to' the defendant personally and not In the capacity of his being a partner of a partnership firm, and that any such advance made under the mortgage deed had nothing to do with the partnership business He further urged that even if it was advanced for partnership purposes a suit such as the one for the amount advanced to the defendant under a mortgage deed can still lie as neither it is barred by any provision of law nor under any terms of contract either under the mortgage deed or the partnership deed between the parties. It will be open, according to him, to the defendant to file a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of general accounts, and the decree passed in this suit can well be accounted for therein. Now both the Courts have found that t...
Tag this Judgment!Champaklal Parbhulal Parikh Vs. Natwarlal Gordhandas Gandhi and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-24-1967
Reported in: 1970CriLJ128; (1968)GLR317
ORDERA.D. Desai, J.1. This appeal is directed against order of acquittal passed by Mr. I.D. Trivedi, Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baroda, acquitting the accrued of the charge of havirg committed an offence under: Section 7 of the Prevention of Pood Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) punishable under Section 16 of the Act.2. The prosecution case was that the accused was a dealer in chilly powder and bad his shop in Kalupura Brahman Falia in the City of Baroda. The complainant, Champak. lal Parbhudas Parikh, was the Food Inspector of Baroda Borough Municipality. The Food Inspector visited the shop of the accused on October 1, 1964 at 8.30 A.M. and found that the accused was keeping approximately 40 kilos of chilly powder in a large bos for the purpose of sale. The complainsnt called Champaklal Maneklal and Luhar Bhikhabhai Parsottam as panch witnesses and in their presence he gave the accused a notice in writing to the effect that he wanted to purchase 450...
Tag this Judgment!United Industries and ors. Vs. Dalwadi and Co. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-15-1967
Reported in: (1968)GLR873
Bhagwati, C.J.1. This revision application is directed against an order passed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, granting leave to defend the suit on condition of depositing Rs. 4000 on or before 25th March, 1965. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants to recover a sum of Rs. 6,377.66 p, being the balance of the price in respect of bricks sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendants together with interest at nine per cent per annum. Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 were admittedly partners of the first defendant at the relevant time when the bricks are alleged to have been sold and delivered by the plaintiffs but it was the case of the defendants in the affidavits in reply that the first defendant was dissolved prior to the filing of the suit. The plaintiffs alleged that diverse quantities of bricks were sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendants from time to time between Samvat years 2017 to 2019 and in respect of the said transactions, an account wa...
Tag this Judgment!Chhaganlal Kikabhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-15-1967
Reported in: 1969CriLJ1164; (1968)GLR983
ORDERA.D. Desai, J.1. This is a Criminal Revision Application filed by one Chhaganlal Kikabhai, who stood surety for one Mangan Bhikka who was arrested by the police head constable, Billimora Police Station on March 18, 1962, for having committed an offence under Section 85(1)(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. On March 19, 1962, the Police Head Constable took a surety bond, from the petitioner which is in the following terms:I, Chhaganlal Kikabbai resident of village Bhatha, Taluka Gandevi is required to give a surety bond. I. therefore, bind myself that Magan Bhikha shall attend wherever called upon, and on such dates of the month and year as may be directed, by the Billimora Police Station Officer and shall continue to so attend until otherwise directed by the said police officer. In case of making a de. fault in that respect, I bind myself to pay a penalty of Rs. 200/- Rupees two hundred only, to the Bharat Government. The bond was signed by the petitioner in the presence of the Pol...
Tag this Judgment!Premchand Jechand Vs. K.G. Sanghrani, Assistant Director and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-10-1967
Reported in: (1968)9GLR777
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. These petitions raise important questions of law relating to the validity of Clauses 3, 14A and 14B of the Cotton Control Order, 1955 and the Notification dated 6th July 1966 issued by the Textile Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred under Clauses 3, 4, 13, 14A and 17 of the said Order as amended by the subsequent Notification dated 5th December 1966. They also challenge the validity of order of compulsory sale of ginned cotton made in some cases by the Assistant Enforcement Officer and in others, by the Assistant Director under Clause 14A of the said Order. The facts giving rise to these petitions are identical and so also are most of the questions arising in them and they were, therefore, beard together. The main arguments were advanced in Petition No. 434. of 1967 and the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the other petitions were allowed to supplement those arguments as also to advance further arguments bearing upon the que...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Diwali and ors. Vs. Koli Bala Ranchhod
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-08-1967
Reported in: AIR1970Guj10
1. It is, thus, a common ground that in the suit land the plaintiff-respondent has 1/3 share and the suit land has been in actual possession of defendants Nos. 1 to 5. The normal rule of law in the case of joint property is that mere exclusive possession and enjoyment by one co-owner is not enough to constitute adverse possession against the other co-owner, unless there is a denial of title justifying a presumption of ouster of the latter as held in the case of Nargisbai D. B. Acidwala v. Jehangir Hormusji Mody, (1943) 45 Bom LR 104. In Mohammad Baquar v. Naim-un-Nisa Bibi, AIR 1956 SC 548, it has been observed that possession of one-co-sharer is possession of all co-sharers and it cannot be adverse to them unless there is a denial of their right to their knowledge by the person in possession, and exclusion and ouster following thereon for the statutory period of 12 years. Thus, it is well settled that the possession of one co-sharer is possession of all co-sharers in respect of the pr...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Ramanlal Chimanlal Khatri
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-08-1967
Reported in: 1969CriLJ810; (1969)GLR611
J.M. Sheth, J.1. The respondent was charge-sheeted to the Court for committing murder of one Ambalal Jagjivandas Purani of Broach by giving him stab wounds with a knife at about 8.15 p.m. on 6.8.1966 at Vankarvas Tekra in Kabirpura locality in the City of Broach. He was also charged for the offence under Section 185 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 for contravention of an order passed by the District Magistrate, Broach under Sub-section (1) of Section 87 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The Committing Magistrate, after making a preliminary inquiry, committed him to the Court of Sessions at Broach to stand his trial for the aforesaid two offences. The deceased Ambalal was working as a clerk in the District Court at Broach. The case had thereupon come to be transferred to the Court of Sessions at Baroda by this Court. The learned Sessions Judge, Baroda, Mr. S.M. Nanavati convicted the respondent of an offence, punishable under Section 304 part 2 of the Indian Penal Code, and for the offence...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›