Gujarat Court December 1969 Judgments
Chimanbhai Dadubhai Desai and anr. Vs. Chaturbhai P. Patel and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-24-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Guj156; (1971)GLR31
Bhagwati, C.J.1. By an order dated 19th September 1969, the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nadiad. in exercise of the power vested in him under Section 86(1) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, directed that an inquiry be instituted into the working, constitution and financial affairs of Charotar Gramoddhar Sahkari Mandal Limited which is the petitioner before us and Shri Harivadan M. Parikh, District Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Rural) Ahmedabad be appointed as the Inquiry Officer for the purpose of holding the inquiry. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order instituting the inquiry, preferred a Revision Application to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gujarat State, who is respondent No. 3 before us, under Section 155 of the Act. This Revision Application was rejected by the Joint Registrar, Administration and Appeals, Co-operative Societies and the reasons which weighted with the Joint Registrar in rejecting the revision application were as f...
Tag this Judgment!Chhaganlal Pratapchand Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-24-1969
Reported in: (1970)11GLR1057
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the original plaintiffs under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (which will be hereinafter referred to as the Code), against the order passed by learned Judge, City Civil Court, 2nd Court, Ahmedabad City. Mr. V.R. Shah (as he then was), below Ex. 16, dated 9th December, 1966, rejecting the application filed by the plaintiffs for refund of the Court-fees paid by them in Summary Suit No. 645 of 1965, withdrawn by them with liberty to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action on 19th August, 1965.2. A short, but interesting question which is of general importance, arises in this revision petition.An application for refund was made by the present plaintiffs in view of Notification No. C C C1061/7005-(i)-D, dated 4th November, 1961, issued by the Government under Section 43(2) of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 (which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said notification provides for refund of Court-fees paid on t...
Tag this Judgment!Sojitra Mohan Haribhai and anr. Vs. Vala Visaman Kalubhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-19-1969
Reported in: (1971)12GLR138
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. Whether Rule 8 of Gujarat Municipalities Election Rules, 1964, requiring that 'the nomination papers shall be delivered by the nominators personally to the Returning Officer' is mandatory or directory? If the nomination papers at a Municipal Election are received by the Returning Officer without challenge or demur and if the election of the successful candidate is subsequently questioned on the ground that the nomination papers ought to have been lodged by the hand of the nominator and not that of the candidate himself, can the election be set aside? These are the two questions raised in these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, both of which arise out of Election Petition No. 1 of 1965, decided by the learned District Judge of Amreli on June 30, 1967 who allowed the petition and set aside the election of the successful candidates.2. The dispute relates to the election of Municipal Councilors under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 a...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Atul Drug House Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-18-1969
Reported in: [1971]41CompCas352(Guj)
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The two petitioners-contributories, one of whom is the managing director of the company, have filed this petition for winding up this admittedly solvent, sound, flourishing concern on the ground that it is just and equitable to do so under section 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as 'the act'. As the admission of this petition and the consequent public advertisement would result in irreparable and irrversible damage to such a solvent concern, the company I pursuance to the notice by this court has appeared and vehemently objected to this petition being admitted. The shorts facts which have given rise to this petition are a under : The concerned company, Atul Drug House Ltd., originally started as a small family concern of the petitioners' minority group or the Shah group as it was registered on June 30, 1956, as a private limited company with its registered office at Kindle with the initial authorized capital of Rs. 5,00,000. The issued capita...
Tag this Judgment!Himatlal K. Shah Vs. Shri Debu, Police Commissioner and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-1969
Reported in: (1971)12GLR13
D.A. Desai, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner Himatlal K. Shah challenges the orders Annexures 'A' and 'B' both dated 2nd September 1969 by which the Deputy Commissioner of Police Special Branch second respondent in this petition-refused to grant permission to the petitioner to hold public meeting near Panch Kuva Darwaja on the 4th and 5th September 1969. The petitioner claims to be the Secretary of Maha Gujarat Nav Jawan Sangh. The petitioner sent two applications on 30th August 1969 to the first respondent Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, praying for a permission to hold meetings near Panch Kuva Darwaja on the 4th and 5th September 1969. Second respondent refused to give permission for the meeting intended to be held on 4th September 1969 on the ground that the application was not made to the concerned officer not less than five days before the time at which the public meeting was to be held as required by Rule 9 of the 'Rules for the conduct, ...
Tag this Judgment!Vashram Daya Harijan Vs. Bijal Deva Harijan and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-09-1969
Reported in: (1971)12GLR40
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This is a revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the petitioner who was original defendant No. 1 in civil suit No. 7 of 1966, filed by opponents Nos. 1 and 2 against the present petitioner and opponent No. 3 (Original defendant No. 2) in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sihor. The order passed by the trial Court below Ex. 25 is regarding the issue of summons to defendant No. 1 for giving evidence as a witness of the plaintiff.2. Mr. Hathi, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, urged that the Court had no jurisdiction to examine the opposite party as a witness. This practice of examining the opposite party as a witness has been condemned by the Privy Council. There is also a circular issued by the Bombay High Court prior to the date of bifurcation of the bigger Bilingual Bombay State in this behalf. There is also a decision of the Bombay High Court condemning such practice and that decision has also been given prior ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramshree Mahavir Vs. Girdharilal Bholanath Agarwal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-09-1969
Reported in: (1970)11GLR971
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. The question raised in this appeal directed against the judgment of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court presiding over Court No. II is whether a person in actual and exclusive possession of a premises can be allowed to be dispossessed forcibly by another person claiming that he has the legal right to the possession of the premises and that the person in actual possession has none. If the person threatened with violent dispossession without recourse to due process of law seeks the aid of the Court of law by way of a 'quatimet' action to restrain the party threatening to take the law in his own hands and to violently dispossess the otherside, can the Court refuse such a request? Such is the problem posed in this appeal. A few facts need to be stated in order to understand the back-ground. Appellant-plaintiff Ramashree Mahavir instituted Civil Suit No. 1559 of 1967 on the allegation that he was in exclusive possession and peaceful enjoyment of suit premises where ...
Tag this Judgment!Balwantrai K. Shukla Vs. Dalwadi Dahya Chhagan and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Guj118; 1971CriLJ604; (1971)0GLR44
Desai, J.1. This is complainant's appeal directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Limbdi, acquitting the opponents of having committed offences punishable under Sections 221(2) and 227 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant is the Chief Officer of the Limbdi Municipality. Opponent No. 2 is the son-in-law of opponent No. 1. The case of the appellant was that the opponents were running a flour mill in the house of opponent No. 1 situated in the locality known as Ugamna Para in the town of Limbdi. On the southern side of this house is situated the house owned by Ranchhoddas Ramjibhai and between this house and the house of opponent No. 1, there is an old wall made of mud. The flour mill was worked by means of a 5 Horse Power electric motor. Opponent No. 1 had obtained a permission to run the flour mill from the Limbdi Municipality. Ranchhoddas Ramji made applications to the Limbdi Mu...
Tag this Judgment!Balwantraik Shukla Vs. Dalwadi Dahya Chhagan and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-1969
Reported in: (1971)12GLR44
A.D. Desai, J.1. This is complainant's appeal directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Limbdi, acquitting the opponents of having committed offences punishable under Section 221(2) and 227 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant is the Chief Officer of the Limbdi Municipality. Opponent No. 2 is the son-in-law of opponent No. 1. The case of the appellant was that the opponents were running a flour mill in the house of opponent No. 1 situated in the locality known as Ugamna Para in the town of Limbdi. On the southern side of this house is situated the house owned by Ranchhoddas Ramjibhai and between this house and the house of opponent No. 1, there is an old wall made mud. The flour mill was worked by means of a 5 Horse Power electric motor. Opponent No. 1 had obtained a permission to run the flour mill from the Limbdi Municipality. Ranchhoddas Ramji made applications to the Limbdi ...
Tag this Judgment!Maganlal Budhaiabhai Patel Vs. Bai Dahi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-01-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Guj33
1. The appellant filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 19 of 1964 for obtaining a divorce from the respondent, on the ground of her living in adultery. The trial court decreed the suit but the decision was set aside in Regular Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1965, by the learned District Judge of Bulsar at Navsari, who dismissed the suit with costs. It is against that order of dismissal that the present appeal is filed.2. The learned trial Judge held that the oral evidence led on behalf of the petitioner was believable and that the same was supported by a letter Ex. 21, dated 10th April, 1962, written by the respondent-wife to the appellant admitting her intimacy with one Madhia alias Govind Ranchhod. He also held that looking to the circumstances of the case, after 19-3-1962, there was hardly and possibility of a sexual intercourse having been taken place between the parties, that the birth of a male child to the respondent on or about 25th February, 1963 was enough to show that the birth of that ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›