Gujarat Court February 1969 Judgments
Chandrakant Himatlal and ors. Vs. Dr. Harjivandas K. Karelia
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-1969
Reported in: (1970)11GLR798
Akbar S. Sarela, J.1. This civil revision application (869/68) raises an interesting question relating to the procedure to be followed in recording evidence by the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, functioning as a Court under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act). The question in brief is whether in appealable cases the Court should record the oral evidence verbatim or whether a memorandum in English of the substance of the evidence will satisfy the requirements of law.2. The revision application concerns a suit for ejectment filed by the petitioners as landlords against opponent who was admittedly a tenant in the suit premises situated at Ahmedabad. The suit (No. 2726 of 1961) was filed in the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad which had under Section 28 of the Rent Act exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and try it. The suit was valued at Rs. 2375/- being Rs. 1320/- for possession (monthly rent of the premises being...
Tag this Judgment!Jindas Oil Mill and anr. Vs. Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-20-1969
Reported in: (1969)10GLR1036
S.M. Hegde, J.1. Common questions of law arise for decision in these appeals, by certificate, The suits from which these appeals arise have been considered together and decided by common judgment both in the High Court as well as in the courts below. It is convenient to do so in this Court as well.2. The suits in questions are representative suits, The plaintiff's-appellants who are consumers of electricity in the Godhra area sued the respondent-company on behalf of all the consumers in that area seeking to restrain the respondent from enforcing the enhanced charges sought to be collected from the consumers of powers used for lights and fans as well as of motive power.3. The facts leading to these may now be stated. On November 19, 1922, the then Government of Bombay granted a licence under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 to a concern called Lady Sulochna Chinubhai and Co. authorising it to generate and supply electricity to the consumers in Godhra area. Clause 10 of the licence presc...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanchi Vora SamsuddIn Isabhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Guj178; 1970CriLJ1348
Mehta, J.1-2 x x x x 3. Mr. Gandhi for the accused raised the most important question in this appeal as to the age of Sheela and argued that this important ingredient in the offence of kidnapping under Section 361 that Sheela was under 18 years age was not brought home to the accused. The learned Sessions Judge has in this connection relied upon the statement of Sheela at Ex. 9 in her evidence that her father when he visisted at Wadhwan before this incident told her that this was her birth date. This reported statement of the father would be no evidence, when the father has not been examined. The learned Sessions Judge further relied upon the birth date certificate issued by the Head Master of the Vikas Vidyalaya, Vadhwan, at Ex. 6, which certifies that the birth-date of Sheela as entered in the General Register of the School was 8th August 1951. The witness Jayantilal Nagardas, the Teacher in the Vidyalaya (Ex. 12) was examined and according to him the certificate was as per general r...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Collector Customs and anr. Vs. MukbujuseIn Ibrahim Pirjada
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-1969
Reported in: 1970CriLJ1305; (1969)GLR692
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The plaintiff Assistant Collector, Customs, Baroda, and the State of Gujarat have filed this appeal against the acquittal of the original accused No. 1 for the offence under Section 185(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The case of the prosecution was, that on September 28, 1968, at about 8.15 A.M. accused No. 1, Mukbul Husain alighted at Baroda from the Janta Express train coming from Bombay. While he was passing through the third class passengers' Exit gate, police constable Navalsing stopped him at the gate as the accused was not able to give satisfactory answers when he was found carrying a hand bag. The accused was detained and the police constable Jivamiya was called. The hand-bag of the accused was searched and 50 bars of gold each weighing 10 Tolas, worth about Rs. 70,000/- were found from the accused's (theli) bag inside the hand-bag. The gold bars are alleged to have foreign markings 'N. M. ROTHSCHILD & SONS 10 Tolas, 999-00'. ' Panchanama Ex. 12 was made of t...
Tag this Judgment!Ojas Corporation and ors. Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-1969
Reported in: (1970)11GLR164
A.R. Bakshi, J.1. This is a petition asking for a writ restraining the respondent, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Gujarat Region, from enforcing and implementing the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Scheme framed thereunder against the petitioners. The petition is based on the following facts.2. The first petitioner is a registered partnership firm of which petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are partners. The petitioner firm runs two separate establishments which are factories and which have been described in the petition as Factory No. 1 and Factory No. 2. Factory No. 1 is independent of and separate from Factory No. 2 and was started sometime in 1946 and it manufactures soap, white zinc paints, wire nails and textile auxiliaries. That factory was registered as a 'factory' under the provisions of the Factories Act and being engaged in the manufacture of goods shown in Schedule I to the Act, the provisions of tha...
Tag this Judgment!Vora Mulla Taheralai Mulla Akbaralli Vs. Manoranjan Barua
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Guj122; (1969)GLR950
Shah, J.1. The appellant in Second Appeal No. 424 of 1961 is the plaintiff; while the appellant in Second Appeal No. 539 of 1961 is the defendant in Civil State No. 97 of 1957 filed in the Civil Court at Sidhpur. The circumstances under which these two Second Appeals arise may be briefly stated.2. The subject-matter of this dispute is a house at Sidhpur, and it belonged to one Alihussain Mahmadalli Iqbal. On 6-11-1952. Alihussain entered into an agreement of sale (Exh. 120) of this house with the plaintiff and the sale price was fixed at Rs. 8,000, out of which an amount of Rs. 2,500 was paid to Alihussain by the plaintiff on 6-11-1952. The balance amount of the purchase price has been paid by the plaintiff by the end of 1954. 6-11-1952, Alihusain put the plaintiff in possession of the house. The present defendant obtained a money decree against Alihussain on 15-2-1956 in suit No. 873 of 1954 in the Calcutta High Court. The present defendant-judgment-creditor filed Execution Applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›