Gujarat Court April 1967 Judgments
S.M. Thakkar Vs. M.A. Baqui
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-28-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Guj74; (1968)GLR138
Miabhoy, C.J.1. This petition raises an important question relating to Court deposits, but, unfortunately, having regard to the facts of the case, it is not possible for us to decide that point finally so as to be of any help either to petitioner or to Court depositors in general2. The facts leading up to the presentation of the petition are as follows: Petitioner entered into a contract for sale of an immovable property with two persona named (1) Mrs. Dhanbai Lallubhai, and (2) Suleman Lallubhai, and paid Rs. 900 by way of earnest money. Subsequently, she filed Special Suit No. 5 of 1963 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baroda, for specific performance of that contract. At that time, she paid a sum of Rs. 19,100 in cash by way of deposit, to be credited to the above cause. The suit was ultimately compromised on 16th January 1965, by which, the purchase price was fixed at Rs. 47,000/-. Petitioner, having already paid Rs. 900 and deposited Rs. 19,100 in Court, d...
Tag this Judgment!isac Osman and ors. Vs. Valimohmad Isac
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-26-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Guj301; (1969)GLR61
1. This appeal arises out of an order passed on 18th August 1960 by Mr. M. D. Manek, District Judge at Amreli in Civil Appeal No. 70 of 1959, whereby the order passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) Kodinar, in Darkhast No. 40 of 1957 came to be set aside and the case sent back to the trial Court for disposal according to law with a direction that the trial Court should proceed to decide the question as directed in the decision of the District Court in the prior Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1957 of which a certified copy is at Ex. 91 in the proceeding, and directing the parties to bear the own costs in the appeal.2. A preliminary point came to be raised Mr. I. R. Patel, the learned advocate for the respondent, saying that the appeal is not competent inasmuch as the decree passed by the first appellate Court is based on consent of parties in view of section 96(3) read with section 108 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is unnecessary to set out the facts leading to this appeal for the reason, that, in...
Tag this Judgment!Ratilal Balabhai Nazar Vs. Ranchhodbhai Shankerbhai Patel and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-26-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Guj172; (1968)0GLR48
Bhagwati, J.(1) This litigation has had a checkered history and it is necessary to set out briefly the relevant facts leading upto the filling of this petition. A recapitulation of these facts is necessary for the purpose of appreciating the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents against the maintainability of the petition. The dispute in the petition relates to two rooms on the ground floor of a building known as Himmat Nivas situate in Ahmedabad. The premises were let out by the original owner to the petitioner at a monthly rent which according to the petitioner was Rs. 50 per month inclusive of municipal taxes and electricity charges. The rent, according to the respondents, however, was Rs. 50 per month plus municipal tax plus Rs. 5 in respect of electricity charges. We shall presently refer to this dispute about the rent, but in the meantime it may be pointed out that the original landlords may be pointed out that the original landlords may be pointed out that th...
Tag this Judgment!Baroda Borough Municipality Vs. Soma Bhaiji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-26-1967
Reported in: (1967)8GLR907
A.R. Bakshi, J. 1. These revision applications involve a common point as regards the interpretation and application of Section 85 A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The petitioner in each of the Civil Revision Applications Nos. 181 to 187 of 1965 filed a suit against the respondent of each revision application in which a question arose as to whether the defendant was a tenant or not. The issue as to whether the defendant was a tenant in the suit land was referred by the Civil Court to the Mamlatdar for his decision under Section 8SA of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and the suits were stayed till the decision of the competent authority under that Act. The Mamlatdar decided the issue and communicated his decision to the Civil Court. The plaintiff in each suit applied to the Civil Court for stay of the suit on the ground that he wanted to prefer an appeal against the decision of the Mamlatdar and that therefore, the suit be stayed till the appellate ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Owning Western Railway Vs. Lalji Bhimji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-25-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Guj55
N.G. Shelat, J.1. One Nanubhai Harjiyan as the manager and co-sharer of a Hindu undivided family firm running in the name of Messrs Lalji Bhimji, at Amreli, filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 55 of 1947-48 in the Civil Court of the then State of Baroda, against the Governor General-in-Council of the Indian Dominion as the owner of the Bengal-Assam Railway for recovering an amount of Rs. 8500 in all on the basis of total loss of a consignment booked at Sialda Railway Station of Calcutta in favour of the plaintiff-firm to be delivered at Amreli. The summons was issued on the defendant as described in the plaint and since there was no appearance, the suit proceeded ex parte. A decree for the sum of Rs. 8500 together with running interest at 3% on Rs. 5,141 and odd and costs of the suit came to be passed against the defendant on 13-11-1938. The plaintiff-firm thereafter filed a Regular Darkhast No. 65 of 1951 in the Court of the Civil Judge (J. D.) at Amreli -- it being the successor Court of ...
Tag this Judgment!Alimiya Mahmadmiya and anr. Vs. Sayed Mohomed Baquir Eledroos Valde Sa ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Guj257; (1968)0GLR1002
(1) On an application made by the appellants, an inquiry under section 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') was made by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad. He held the trust known as 'Shaikh Din Abdullah Hasrat Bada Edroos Saheb oza, Masjid and Kabrasthan, Ahmedabad,' to be a public trust as defined under section 2(13) of the Act, and that way directed the same to be registered under the provisions of the Act. The properties appertaining to the said trust were also held to be the properties thereof. According to him, the trust was a public Wakf by user. Against that decision passed on 23rd April 1956, the appellant preferred Appeal No. 125 of 1956 before the Charity Commissioner under Section 70 of the Act. By an order passed on 29th May 1957 by Mr. S. C. Bhatt, Charity Commissioner, Bombay, that appeal came to be dismissed with costs. Aggrieved by that decision, Miscellaneous Application No. 149 of 1957 was filed under section ...
Tag this Judgment!Shantaben Thakor Vs. New Raipur Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-14-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Guj118; [1968(16)FLR54]; (1967)GLR1012
A.R. Bakshi, J. (1) This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the decision in First Appeal No. 1079 of 1960 which was a First Appeal preferred in this Court against the order of the Commissioner for workmen's compensation Application No. 87 of 1958 which arose on the following facts. The applicant in that mater was the widow of one Chandulal Hemchand who was an employee of the New Rajpur Mills Company Limited, Ahmedabad, the present respondent and who died on 12th February 1958 when he was on work in the stamping department of the mills. On that day Chandulal felt giddy and became unconscious and subsequently died in the department. The monthly wags of Chandulal were between R. 80 and R. 100 and his widow the original applicant as the dependant of the deceased, claimed Rs. 3,000 as compensation on account of the death of her deceased husband having occurred as a result of a personal injury received by him by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The learned Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Dharamshi Premji Vs. Bai Sakar Kanji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-13-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Guj150; (1967)GLR888
Bhagwati, J. (1) This appeal raises a short but interesting question of construction of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The question is whether a husband or wife can apply to the Court for permanent alimony under Section 25 after the passing of a decree for divorce. There is a decision of Raju J in Gunvantray v. Bai Prabha : AIR1963Guj242 where the view has been taken that such an application cannot be made as the decree for divorce puts an end to the relationship of husband and wife and thereafter an application made to the Court cannot be said to be an application by the husband or the wife as required by Section 25. The validity of this view is questioned in the present Second Appeal. The question raised is a pure question of law depending on the construction of Section 25, but it is necessary to state briefly a few facts giving rise to the appeals as they are relevant to the alternative contention urged on behalf of the appellant. (2) The appellant and the respondent we...
Tag this Judgment!Navsing Thavaria and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-1967
Reported in: 1968CriLJ996
A.D. Desai, J.1. The appellants in this ease ware convicted for an offence under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals, Godhra in Sessions Case No. 19 of 1965.2. The prosecution case was that on October 18, 1964, Head Constable Naharsing Sardarsing Sisodia was at Jesavada outpost for keeping 'Baudobast' i.e., for maintaining law and order in the village. There was a communal riot at Dohad and the situation in the villages of Jasavada was very tease. The head constable had called the leaders of the village and was holding a meeting. The Head Constable was requesting the people not to support any rumours and to maintain peace in the village. While the meeting was in progress at about 9.00 P.M. the Head Constable was informed that 1500 Bhils bad collected with arrows, bows, dharias, sticks etc., in Kalal Falia of the village The Head Constable, with four constab...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Prabhudas Ishwardas Vs. Coprarceners of a Joint Hindu Family of S ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Guj236; (1967)GLR649
Bhagwati, J. (1) This revision application arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants to recover a sum of Rs. 3,600 being the amount of three instalments due and payable by defendants to the plaintiffs under a document Exhibit 4/1 executed by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also relied on another document Exhibit 4/2 in support of this claim, though the claim was rested primarily on the document Exhibit 4/1. The defendants amongst various defense raised by them in the written statement urged that the documents. Ex. 4/1 and 4/2 were promissory notes and since they were inadequately stamped, they were not admissible in evidence. One of the issues framed by the trial Court, namely, issue No. 3, therefore, raised the question whether the documents Exhibits 4/1 and 4/2 were promissory notes and hence inadmissible in evidence. At the trial of the suit, when the plaintiff's partner Chimanlal Jagjivandas was in the witness-box and wa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »