Gujarat Court December 1968 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.
Maneklal Nathalal Jingar Vs. Ochhavlal Chhaganlal and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-03-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Guj49; (1969)GLR654
ORDER1. This application raises a short point about limitation in respect of an application made under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code and arises under the following circumstances:2. The petitioner -original decree-holder obtained a decree for possession against opponent No. 1-Original judgment-debtor. He filed Darkhast NO. 569 of 1964 and a warrant for possession was issued under Order 21. Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Code. The opponent No.2 resisted the delivery of possession and thereafter the petitioner withdrew his Darkhast on 2-4-1965. He filed another Darkhast NO. 220 of 1965 and obtained a fresh warrant for possession on 25-4-1965. Opponent No. 2 again resisted the delivery of possession to the petitioner and the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Application No. 156 of 1965 on 26-4-1965 under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 97 to remove the resistance made by the opponent No. 2 and for possession of the premises. It does not appear from the record of the case befo...
Jaykant Harkishandas Shah Vs. Durgashanker Valji Pandya
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-03-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Guj106; (1970)GLR178
1. It is the contention of Mr. Chinoy that a de facto guardian cannot impose liability by executing a lease deed on behalf of the minor and if such lease deed is executed the same would be null and void and that the de facto guardian has no right to start a new business on behalf of the minor and the minor is not bound if any liability is incurred for any such business. He relied upon a Privy Council decision in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas, (1903) 5 Bom. L.R. 421, where their Lordships held that a contract entered into with an infant is not voidable but void and the infant is not under any obligation to repay the money that he received under the contract. This decision was considered by the Bombay High Court in Vijayakumar Motilal v. Newzealand Insurance Co. Ltd. : AIR1954Bom347 , where Desai J., after considering the decision of the Privy Council in Mohori Bibee's case (1903) 5 Bom L.R. 421, observed:-'The proposition laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council being in general te...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›