Gujarat Court February 1970 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.
Bhagwanji Bawanji Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Guj64; (1971)0GLR156
Shelat, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against an order passed on 4-9-1968 in Special Civil Appln. No. 578 of 1967, whereby it came to be dismissed with costs. The facts leading to that application may be broadly stated.2. A plot of land bearing No. 178 which consists of plots bearing S. Nos. 14/5, 15/3, 16/1, 16/2, 16/3 and 19/1 is situated near Rai-chowk in the town of Upleta in the District of Rajkot. The entire land admeasures about 17 bighas, 3 gunthas which is equivalent to about 38,800 square yards. This land along with land No. 169 were reserved by the then State of Condal for being included in the town planning scheme for Upleta. Since that did not materialise, the State of Condal allotted the plot of land No. 178 for the purpose of cultivation to one Bawanji Rada, the father of the petitioner, appellant along with two others Bhana Duda and Savji Duda on payment of revenue assessment under a document of grant dated 26th July 1939. As the case of the petitioner wen...
Shankarrao Ramrao Mairal and anr. Vs. Sumati Bhikaji Khiste
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Guj178; (1971)0GLR570
1. This appeal is directed against the appellate judgment and decree in Regular Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1961 decided by Mr. D. A. Desai, District Judge, Baroda.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as under.3. The defendant No. 1 owned a piece of land in the Wadi locality of the city of Baroda. He farmed out plots in that piece of land and started selling them as building sites. There were several rows of plots known as A, B, C and so on. Row C contained 10 plots which were numbered as C10. On 26th August 1958 the plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant No. 1 for purchasing plot C-5. The defendant No. 1 agreed to sell it to her for a sum of Rs. 326.25 p. The agreement of sale is evidenced by receipt of payment Ex. 43 under which on 27th August 1958 the plaintiff paid to the defendant No. 1 a sum of Rs. 51/- as earnest money. On 3rd March 1959 the balance of Rs. 275.25 p. was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1. It is the plaintiff's case that therea...
Bhimji Karsan Vs. Nanduben Nagji and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-20-1970
Reported in: (1971)12GLR123
D.A. Desai, J.1. The applicant before this Court Bhimji Karsan filed Criminal Complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajkot, registered as Criminal Case No. 295 of 1969 against opponents Nos. 1 and 2 for having committed an offence under Section 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant had named certain witnesses in his complaint. After the evidence of the complainant was recorded an application Exh. 11-D was given on behalf of the complainant requesting the learned Magistrate to permit the complainant to examine two witnesses whose names were given in the application and who were kept present before the Court. The learned Advocate for the accused objected to the application being granted. The learned Magistrate rejected the application observing that the complainant had named four witnesses in his complaint and they are dropped without assigning any reasons and two new witnesses are produced whose names are not mentioned in the compla...
Dhirajlal Maganlal Desai Vs. Kamuben W/O. D.M. Desai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-20-1970
Reported in: (1971)12GLR193
D.A. Desai, J.1. Dhirajlal Maganlal Desai applicant in this Revn. Application is the husband and opponent No. 1 Kamuben is the wife of applicant. Kamuben, the wife filed an application being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 1968 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Navsari praying for an order for maintenance in her favour in the amount of Rs. 150/- per month alleging that the husband has refused or neglected to maintain her. In the proceeding before the learned Magistrate, Kamuben examined herself at Ex. 3 and she examined two witnesses Arunkumar Exh. 12 and Babubhai Ex. 15. Her husband Dhirajlal gave his evidence at Exh. 16 and examined one Shankarbhai Dayalji Exh. 19 as his witness. The learned Magistrate was of the opinion that the present applicant husband has both refused and neglected to maintain his wife and after taking into consideration the evidence about the income of the husband, he directed the present applicant to pay Rs. 60/- per month by wa...
Chandrakant Ratanshi Kothari Vs. Ratanshi Damji Kothari and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-19-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Guj55; (1971)0GLR174
ORDER1. This is a revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil P.C against the order passed by learned. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mr. P. M. Desai, in Special Civil Suit No. 20 of 1963, that the court-fees paid by the petitioner (original plaintiff) on the plaint were inadequate and he was directed to pay an additional court-fee of Rs. 2,705/- on or before 21st September, 1965. The costs of the hearing on the question of court-fees, so far as defendants Nos. 10, 14 and 15 were concerned, were ordered to be borne by the plaintiff.2. Mr. Y. State. Mankad, appearing for the petitioner, urged that the plaintiff had filed the present suit for a declaration that the two English mortgages executed by defendant No. 1 (opponent No. 1), the father of the present petitioner, was not binding on him as the mortgages related to the ancestral properties or the joint family properties and the mortgage transactions were not entered into, for the purposes of legal necessity and furthermore,...
isabhai Musabhai Patel and anr. Vs. the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporatio ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Guj145; (1971)0GLR338
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 41 of 1967 are tenants in respect of the land under acquisition. The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 1532 of 1965 are also tenants in respect of the land under acquisition. In both the cases the notifications issued under Section 4 and under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act are the same. The notification under Section 4 was issued on 15th April 1940. The notification under Section 6 was issued on 13th April 1942. The award of compensation was made on 29th February 1960. Special Civil Application No. 41 of 1967, was filed on 12th January 1967. Special Civil Application No. 1532 of 1965 was filed in September 1965. So far as Special Civil Application No. 41 of 1967 is concerned, it was filed seven years after the award was made and 25 years after the notification under Section 6 was issued. So far as Special Civil Application No. 1532 of 1965 is concerned it was filed five years after the award was made a...
Vrajlal Damodar Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-1970
Reported in: (1971)12GLR68
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. The appellant who has been convicted for the offence of being found drunk under Section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act has challenged the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned City Magistrate, 7th Court, Ahmedabad on April 11, 1968 on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish that the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' have been complied with. On September 12, 1967 at about 3-15 a.m. when the appellant was in Manekchowk he was placed under arrest for being found drunk without being in possession of a permit for consuming liquor. P.W. 1 Kalekhan Sherkhan testified that upon receiving some information when he was on duty at about 3-15 a.m. he had proceeded to Manekchowk and had found the appellant in a drunken condition. Panchas were called, the Panchnama was made, and the appellant was sent to the Civil Hospital for being examined by a doctor. In the present ca...
Kansara Tribhovandas Jamnadas Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-1970
Reported in: 1971CriLJ299; (1970)GLR1015
ORDERD.A. Desai, J.1. One Zubeda Husain filed a criminal complaint at Dhoraji Police Station complaining that a big vessel described as 'TAPELA' was given to one Jilubai Alimamad for use and he has committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the same. The Police Station Officer registered the offence Under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and in the course of investigation recovered muddamal vessel from the shop of Kansara Tribhovandas Jamnadas. When the case came up before the Court after the charge-sheet was submitted, original complainant Zubeda and accused Jilubhai Alimamad submitted a statement on 7-7-69 indicating to the Court that they have mutually settled the dispute and have compounded the offence and composition may be recorded and the accused may be acquitted. This statement is at Exh. 7. On the very day that is on 7-7-69, the learned Magistrate accepted the statement compounding the offence and acquitted the accused. Simultaneously the learned Magistrate passed an...
Fulabhai Govindbhai Bhadran and ors. Vs. the Kaira District Tobacco Ma ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-09-1970
Reported in: AIR1972Guj78; (1971)GLR71
Divan, J.1. In both these petitions though the petitioners are different, the provisions of the Rules and the bye-laws framed under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') have been challenged by the respective petitioners. The rules in both the petitions are in connection with the bye-laws of the Kaira District Tobacco Market Committee. Anand and in connection with the market area, the principal market year and the market proper set up for the purpose of controlling trade in tobacco in Kaira District these challenges have been made. 2. The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 460 of 1969 state that petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are dealers in tobacco. Petitioner No. 1 purchases its tobacco from agriculturists and / or other dealers in tobacco and / or from through brokers or commission agents and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are commission agents and brokers. Petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 claim to be agriculturists and tobacco growers. On ...
Saraswatiben Vs. Mafatlal Gopaldas Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-02-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Guj91
ORDER1. This is a revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the original petitioner against the original opponent against the order of remand passed by the learned 3rd Extra Assistant Judge, Nadiad, in Civil Appeal No. 68 of 1968.2. The facts giving rise to this revision petition, briefly stated, are as under:The present petitioner filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 15 of 1965 against the opponent in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nadiad, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. According to her, she was married to the opponent on 26th May, 1959 according to the Hindu rites and custom of the caste. There was consummation of marriage. During the wedlock, two children were born. The opponent started illtreating her after some time and used to press her to bring money from her grand-father. She was ultimately driven out after illtreating her. All her attempts to call her back faile...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›