Gujarat Court February 1968 Judgments
Balamal Matlomal Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Guj26; 1970CriLJ46; (1970)0GLR130
ORDER1. The charge against one Ibrahimkhan Fazalkhan in Criminal Case No. 1201 of 1964. In the Court of the Chief City Magistrate, Ahmedabad, was that he had committed theft of 5 catchpit jalis ordinarily known as covers of the gutters, of the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad, in the early morning of 1-10-1964, so as to be liable for an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was found going in auto rickshaw bearing No. GTD 285 wherein he had put the said stolen property. He was stopped, and as he could not explain about the possession of those catch-pit jalis that property as also the auto rickshaw came to be attached under a panchnama made in respect thereof. During that trial one Gokaldas Kanjibhai was examined as a witness on behalf of the prosecution, as the owner of that auto rickshaw. According to his evidence he had given that rickshaw to one Babubhai Nurbhai on hire on 30-9-1964 with instructions to return the same to him at Amedpura before the next m...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Bhogilal Lallubhai Pandya by His Heirs Bai Kanchanben and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-1968
Reported in: (1969)10GLR76
B.J. Divan, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is the original defendant and the respondents are the heirs and legal representatives' of the original plaintiff. The plaintiff was a Government servant and the defendent is the original State of Bombay and now the State of Gujarat. The suit was instituted in 1957 against the State of Bombay. The appeal against the decision of the learned trial Judge was heard and disposed of by the learned Assistant Judge, Kaira, on September 14, 1960; and thereafter this appeal was filed after bifurcation of the bilingual State of Bombay; and the litigation has continued with the State of Gujarat as the defendant.2. The plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint was that he had joined service in the Education Department of the erstwhile Baroda State on June 26, 1935; and he was confirmed as a teacher in that Department on August 1, 1939. After his confirmation, he continued to serve Baroda State as a teacher and on May 1, 1949, when the Baroda State was me...
Tag this Judgment!Satubha K. Vaghela Vs. Moosa Raza, the District Development Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-21-1968
Reported in: (1969)10GLR23
J.B. Mehta, J.1. In this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order at Annexure 'P', dated 7th/8th September 1964, removing the petitioner as Sarpanch and as a member of the Sayala Gram Panchayat and the order at Annexure 'R', dated 8th September 1964, disqualifying him for a period of four years passed by respondent No. 1, the District Development Officer, as a delegate of respondent No. 2, the competent authority viz the Surendranagar District Panchayat. The petitioner has also challenged along with these two orders, the resolution No. 3/11 dated 17th August 1963 delegating powers under Section 49 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', to respondent No. 1.2. The short facts which have given rise to this petition are as under: The petitioner is elected Sarpanch of the Sayala Gram Panchayat, hereinafter referred to 'the Panchayat' from about December 1963. It appears that there was an audit ...
Tag this Judgment!Sankalchand Varchhaji Vs. Khengaram Vardhaji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-19-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Guj342; 1969CriLJ1501; (1969)GLR947
N.G. Shelat, J. 1. This application in revision is directed against an order of acquittal presumably passed under Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code by Shri K. H. Damani, City Magistrate, 7th Court, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No. 1554 of 1966 on the ground that the complainant was not present when called out. 2. On 30th September 1966 the petitioner had filed a complaint in the Court of the learned Magistrate against the opponents inter alia alleging that they had committed offences punishable under Ss. 323-504 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The process was directed to be issued by the learned Magistrate on 30-9-66 in respect of an offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The procedure contemplated under Chapter XX of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of trial of summons cases by Magistrates was followed in the case. The evidence of thecomplainant was recorded and then the matter had come to be adjourned to 27th December 1966. On that day, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Fatma Wd/O. Suleman Kasim Simji Vs. Ismail Hafiz Gulam Mohmad Simj ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-1968
Reported in: (1969)10GLR450
V.B. Raju, J.1. This revision application arises out of execution proceedings to execute a decree passed in an administration suit by an heir. A final decree, which was the only decree passed, directed that certain shares should be delivered by the petitioner to one Nazir Ahmad Haji Ismail Simji, who was not a party to the suit on the ground that the shares belonged to that person. The executing Court below rejected the contention that the decree was not maintainable and executable.2. Form No. 42 in Appendix A to the First Schedule to the Civil Procedure Code relates to administration in a suit by specific legatee. Form No. 43 relates to administration by pecuniary legatee. Specific property bequeathed to a specific legatee can be ordered to be given to a specific legatee only in an administration suit filed by a specific legatee as mentioned in the aforesaid form No. 42. The decree passed is, there fore, not one that can be passed under the Civil Procedure Code and therefore cannot be...
Tag this Judgment!Kumbhar Dhulabhai Kalubhai Vs. Patel Ganeshbhai Fulabhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-15-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Guj176; 1969CriLJ729; (1969)GLR582
N.G. Shelat, J.1. On 15-4-66 the learned Magistrate before whom the Criminal Case No. 438 of 1966 was pending, passed an order below Ex. 1 whereby summons were directed to be issued against the accused for offences under Sections 323 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was directed to be registered accordingly. As the proceedings of the case show, it was then fixed on 28-4-66 for service of the summons to the accused. On that day it appears that the accused was absent though served. At the same time the complainant was also absent. His pleader was, however, present. Since the complainant was absent when called out and as his learned advocate said that he had no instructions, the learned Magistrate passed an order whereby the accused came to be acquitted under Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Feeling dissatisfied with that order passed on 28-4-66. by Mr. M. M. Modha, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kheralu, the complainant has come in appeal before this Court. 2. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Jayaben Girjashanker Oza Vs. Bai Bhanumati Damji and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Guj222; (1969)GLR754
J.M. Sheth, J. 1. In this second appeal, a short but interesting question of law arises.2. The facts giving rise to this second appeal are briefly stated as under :--3. The respondent No. 1 Bai Bhanumati is a second mortgagee. The respondent No. 2 Harjivan is an original mortgagor, a judgment-debtor. One Damodar Chattrabhuj was a first mortgagee. He had filed a Civil Suit No. 46 of 1960 against the respondent No. 2 Harjivan for recovery of his mortgage dues and he had obtained a decree for recovery of his dues from the sale of the mortgaged property. The respondent No. 1 Bai Bhanumati in whose favour the second mortgage was executed by the said judgment-debtor was not a party to that suit. It means that the subsequent mortgagee was not a party to the suit filed by a prior mortgagee for recovery of his mortgage dues. The aforesaid suit was filed on 26th September, 1960. The said first mortgagee filed a Regular Darkhast No. 290 of 1960 to recover Ra 7.654.01 by a sale of the mortgaged pr...
Tag this Judgment!Ambalal Ranchhoddas (Deed. by His Heirs) and anr. Vs. Shamjibhai Ladha ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-1968
Reported in: (1969)10GLR197
J.B. Mehta, J.1. These two petitions are filed by two brothers who are landlords challenging the order of the Revenue Tribunal, dated 18th August 1962. by which the Revenue Tribunal has set aside the findings of the two lower authorities. It has held that the application of the two landlords under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act' were time barred and has dismissed the said application on that ground. As these two petitions raise common questions of law and facts they are disposed of together by this common judgment.2. The short facts which have given rise to these petitions are as under:S.No. 387, admeasuring 7 Acres and 30 Gunthas originally stood in the name of one brother Ranchhoddas, the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1018 of 1962. It is the case of the petitioner that the original S. No. 387 was divided into two parts in 1950-51 and accordingly, 3 acres of land went to the share of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Chhatrasingh Rupsingh Bhalavat Vs. the State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-09-1968
Reported in: (1968)9GLR860
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. These two petitions raise identical questions of law and it would, therefore, be convenient to dispose them of by a single judgment. The facts giving rise to these two petitions are also similar but it is necessary to set out the facts of each petition separately in order to avoid confusion as to facts in the two petitions. So far as petition No. 686 of 1965 is concerned, the facts may be briefly stated as follows: The Gram Panchayat of village Tundav situate in Savli Taluka of Baroda District was constituted in 1961 and the petitioner who was elected as a member of the Tundav Gram Panchayat was elected its Sarpanch some-tirre in 1961. The petitioner by virtue of his office as Sarpanch of Tundav Gram Panchayat became an ex officio member of the Savli Taluka Panchayat under Section 14 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and when the Baroda District Panchayat was constituted in the end of January 1964, he was elected as a member ...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Shivlal Bhogilal Vs. Shah Vadilal Dipchand
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Guj141
M.U. Shah, J.1. This appeal Is filed by the original decree-holder against the decision of the Court of the District Judge, Mehsana, given in Regular Civil Appeal No. III of 1962 of his Court, thereby upholding the decision of the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Harij, Mehsana District, given in Civil Execution Application No. 10 of 1961 of his Court By the said order, the learned Civil Judge at Harij had dismissed the execution application on the ground that it was only the Court passing the decree, viz., the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chanasma, which had the Jurisdiction to entertain and try the execution application and that the Harij Court had no such Jurisdiction.2. The appellant-decree-holder had obtained a money decree against the present respondent (judgment-debtor) in Civil Suit No. 40 of 1952, which was modified by the learned District Judge,Mehsana, in Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1954 by a decree passed on July 15, 1958. The decree passed in favour of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »