Gujarat Court March 1971 Judgments
Mahammadmiya Kalumiya Vs. Majidkhan Dildarkhan and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1409
ORDERD.P.Desai, J.1. The petitioner is the original complainant. He had filed a private complaint against opponent No. 1 Original Accused in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Surat for offences under Sections 497 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation was that the accused being aware of the fact that one Kherunnissa was the lawfully wedded wife of the complainant enticed her away with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with him and concealed or detained her with that intent and also committed sexual intercourse with her without the consent of the complainant. The learned Magistrate at the end of the trial convicted the accused under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to`I. for 2 months and a fine of Rs. 100/-. He was acquitted of the offence under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. Against that order of conviction and sentence the accused went in appeal to the Sessions Court at Surat and the learned Sessions Judge disagreei...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Neksabbibi and anr. Vs. Kashiben Maganbhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-09-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Guj287; (1971)0GLR1039
1. The petitioners are the owners of S. Nos. 1742, 161/2, 1738/2, 1174/8 and 1174/7 of village Chaklasi in Kaira District. They are hereinafter referred to as the landladies. The landladies applied to the Mamlatdar for granting them Exemption Certificate under Section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tenancy Act' for the sake of brevity). In the first instance, the Mamlatdar found that their income was below Rupees 1500/- and, therefore, by his order dated 15th November, 1961 he granted Exemption Certificate to them.2. The tenants appealed to the Collector. The Deputy Collector, Nadiad decided the appeal by his order dated 7th October, 1962. He set aside the order of the Mamlatdar and remanded the matter to him for a fresh decision. On remand, the Mamlatdar examined the merits of the case and also the question as to limitation. He, thereupon, dismissed the application on 31st October, 1964 on the ground that it was barred by ti...
Tag this Judgment!Faizubhai Mahmadbhai Vs. Balkrishna Naradlal Bhatt
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-06-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Guj9; (1972)0GLR137
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Junagadh in Civil Appeal No. 150 of 1964, where under he confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Junagadh, in Civil Suit No. 32 of 1963. That suit was filed by one Munshi Abdulla Miyan Mahmad Miyan, describing himself as the 'Rent Collector' of the house of Datar Estate Committee of Junagadh. The suit was filed for recovery of possession of the leased premises and arrears of rent on the ground that the appellant-tenant was a tenant in arrears. A valid notice to quit was given and the contractual tenancy was determinded. A notice contemplated under section 12 (2) of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act, 1951 (which will be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was given. That notice was not complied with and hence the suit was filed as contemplated under section 12 (2) of the Act. That notice was given under the instructions of bot...
Tag this Judgment!Wadhvan City Municipality at Wadhavan City, Surendrangar Vs. the Zalaw ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Guj50
Divan, J.1. This appeal has come before us under a certificate granted by A.D. Desai, J. under C1. 15 of the Letters Patent in respect of a decision given by his in Second Appeal No.184 of 1962. This appeal raises an interesting question about the interpretation of S. 57 of the Electricity (Supply) Act. 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Supply Act). The short facts leading to this appeal are that on September 2, 1943, an agreement was arrived at between Wadhwan City Municipality, the appellant herein, and the predecessor of the respondent-Company. The agreement was in respect of electricity supply at certain rates for the purpose of street-lighting and for the supply of electrical energy for running water works. In 1950, the present respondent-Company purchased the assets and liabilities of its predecessor. In 1952, the respondent-Company revised the rates which were being charged to the appellant-Municipality and the revision was by way of an increase in the existing rates. In resp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›