Gujarat Court January 1969 Judgments
Jafarabad Municipality Vs. Kathiawar Industries Limited
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Guj344
Sarela, J. 1. These two second appeals (Appeal No. 187/61 and Appeal No. 657/61) which arise from two suits between the same parties heard together by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhavnagar, raise identical questions of fact and law. He delivered a common judgment decreeing the suits. The appeals by the defendants to the District Judge, Amreli, from the decrees in the two suits were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment dated 24th October 1960 substantially confirming the trial court's decision. Against that judgment these two appeals have been filed. They have been argued together and as the points raised in both of them are identical they would be disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The appellant in both the appeals is the Jafarabad Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the Municipality). That Municipality was the defendant in the suits. The respondent in both the appeals is the Kathiawad Industries Ltd., a firm carrying on salt business, of which part is withi...
Tag this Judgment!Mehta Keshavlal Pragji Vs. Bhatia Dwarkadas Gokaldas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-16-1969
Reported in: (1969)10GLR857
N.G. Shelat, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 20 of 1963 in the Court of the Civil Judge (J.D.) at Kalawad for recovering possession of the suit shop together with mesne profits and costs of the suit against the appellant-original defendant inter alia alleging that he had taken the suit shop under a rent-note dated 20th October 1960 on a monthly rent of Rs. 33/- and that he had agreed to hand over possession thereof when he required the same for selling or mortgaging or at any time when he required for his own purposes by giving him one month's notice. The plaintiff required the said shop for raising a loan of Rs. 10, 000/- by creating a mortgage with possession thereon and that for that purpose be served him a notice dated 8th January 1963 terminating his tenancy and demanding possession of the suit shop from Maha Vad 30 of S.Y. 2019. Since the defendant failed to comply therewith he filed the suit against the defendant.2. The defendant resisted the suit by...
Tag this Judgment!Saurashtra Iron Foundry and Steel Works Private Ltd. and ors. Vs. Bhav ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-16-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Guj53; (1970)0GLR351
ORDER1. These are three petition which arise on account of the imposition of octroi tax by the Bhavnagar Municipality. Since there are certain common facts and questions that would require to be considered in these three petitions, it would be convenient to dispose them of by one judgment, though each petition will be dealt with separately.2. There are certain facts which are undisputed and common to all the three petitions and, therefore, may be stated at the outset. The Bhavnagar Municipality was constituted under the Bhavnagar Municipality Act as it was in force in the erstwhile State of Bhavnagar and was deemed to have been constituted thereafter under the Bombay Municipality Boroughs Act, 1925 as applied to the State of Saurashtra in 1949, and under the Guajarat Municipalities Act, 1963, when it was enacted and applied to the State of Gujarat, Formerly, the Bhavnagar Municipality (hereinafter called 'the Municipality') levied and collected terminal tax on the goods imported within...
Tag this Judgment!Ranchhodlal Khumaji Joshi Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-10-1969
Reported in: (1970)11GLR499
B.J. Divan, J.1. The appellant in these four appeals is the same individual. He was at the relevant time, Talati-cum-Secretary of Mota Jampura in Kankrej Taluka of Banaskantha District. He was tried by the learned Special Judge, Banaskantha, at Palanpur, in four different cases in connection with different amounts alleged to have been misappropriated by him when he was working as the Talati-cum-Secretary of this group of villages. In Mota Jampura Saja there were three different villages under the accused, viz. Mota-Jampura, Kasara and Amblun and the amounts alleged to have been misappropriated by the accused were said to have been paid to him by different residents of these three villages.2. In the case out of which Criminal Appeal No. 763 of 1966 arises, it was alleged against the accused that on July 18, 1963, one Jeha Devaji of Mota Jampura had paid a sum of Rs. 197/-, being the amount of the instalment payable by Jeha towards the dues of the Land Mortgage Bank. The accused is alleg...
Tag this Judgment!Babar Somla Kamli Vs. Ganpat Narayan Mohite
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-09-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Guj148
1. In this revision application it is contended that the lower Court has not recorded findings on an issue which had been framed for determination by the lower Court. After deleting the issue previously framed the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Umbergaon decided that the issue framed cannot be decided by his Court. Having framed the issue it is not open to the Court to say that it was not necessary to frame the issue merely because the Court had passed a decree in another Civil Suit No. 42 of 1963. The learned Judge deleted the issue on the ground that the party had applied to the Mamlatdar. These are not good grounds. Once an issue is framed which cannot be tried by the Civil Court it must be decided by the Tenancy Court. It was obligatory on the part of the Court to refer the issue to the Tenancy Court.2. This Revision Application is, therefore, allowed. The Court is directed to follow the provisions of Section 85-B of the Tenancy Act.3. Revision allowed....
Tag this Judgment!Shashikant Mohanlal Desai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-07-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Guj204; (1970)0GLR122
Bhagwati, C.J.(1) These petitions raise a short but interesting question of construction of Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agriculatural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Though the question of law which arises in these petitions is common, the facts are not identical and it is therefore, necessary to state the facts of each petition separately.2. Petition No. 372 of 1967:- Prior to 1st April 1957, the petitioner's a predecessor -in-title of the third respondent was the tenant of survey No. 228 statute in village Rander, Taluka Chorashi, District Surat. By reason of Section 32 of the Act, the predecessor-in-title of the third respondent became the deemed purchaser of the said survey number on 1st April 1957 and in an inquiry held under Section 320, the Agriculatural Lands Tribunal fixed the purchase price of the said survey number at Rs. 12,000/- by an order made on 31st October 1963. The purchase price was payable in twelve equal annual instalments of Rs. 100...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›