Gujarat Court January 1972 Judgments
Abdul Rehman Adambhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-1972
Reported in: (1973)14GLR66
D.A Desai, J.1. Respondent No. 2 Mahmadbhai Kalubhai lodged an information of an offence at Deesa Police Station on 16th April 1971 alleging that the present petitioner has committed an offence of criminal breach of trust or cheating in respect of a jeep car bearing No. GJC. 1878 and the offence was registered. The Investigating Officer in course of investigation seized the jeep car from the petitioner and thereafter followed a very curious and thoroughly illegal procedure of handing over jeep car to the petitioner after taking a bond from him without reporting seizure to the Magistrate. After handing over jeep car in question, the Investigating Officer sent a yadi on 26th May 1971 to the Judicial Magistrate First Class intimating to him the fact of handing over of jeep car to the petitioner. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 7th July 1971 called upon the Investigation Officer to explain how he handed over jeep car in question to the petitioner without the permission of the cou...
Tag this Judgment!Bankimchandra Shivashanker and ors. Vs. Vishnuprasad Meganlal Vaidya a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Guj78; (1972)GLR905
ORDER1. The plaintiffs had filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 194 of 1966 in the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhuj, for the recovery of the amount due on the mortgage by sale of the mortgaged property. According to the plaintiffs. the mortgage deed had been executed by one Mehta Maganlal Himatram in favour of their grand-father. The defendant having died during the pendency of the suit his legal representatives were brought on record in due course. The defendants raised two preliminary objections in the trial Court and they were that, the court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 214 of the India Succession Act. 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as the plaintiffs who were claiming under the will of the section. As regards the first objection, the learned trial Judge has held that, he has jurisdiction to try the suit. However, he upheld the second objection and gave time to the plaintiffs t...
Tag this Judgment!Ramji Virji and ors. Vs. Kadarbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Guj110; (1972)GLR81
1. The deceased defendant's heirs challenge in this appeal the eviction decree passed by the lower appellant court on the ground that the defendant-tenant had without the landlord's consent in writing erected on the promises structure of permanent nature and was, therefore, disentitled from getting any protection under the Rent Act, in view of the Section 13(1)(b) of the Sarashtra Rent Control Act, 1951.2. The test for determination as on what is a permanent structure has now been evolved by the decision of the Division Bench consisting of Bhagwati, J. as he then was and myself in 6 Guj LR 27 = (AIR 1965 Guj 152) while interpreting the said section in Ibrahim v. Haji Khamahomad. Bhagwati, J. speaking of the Division Bench in terms pointed out that considering the scheme of Section 108(h) of the Transfer of property Act which entitled the tenant, on the determination of the tenancy, to remove, at any time whilst he is in possession of the premises, all things which he has attached to th...
Tag this Judgment!Manmath Manidharprasad Vyas Vs. Chunilal Maganlal Patel and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ799; (1972)GLR967
ORDERD.A. Desai, J.1. Petitioner is the original accused in Criminal Case No. 731 of 1971 an the file of the City Magistrate. 5th Court. Ahmedabad, Opponent No. 1 is the original complainant. Opponent No. 1 had filed Criminal Case No. 2 of 1971 in the Court of the City Magistrate, 9th Court, Ahmedabad on 10th March 1971. The learned City Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant on oath and passed an order that process for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code should be issued. The case, for the reasons to be presently mentioned came to be transferred to the 8th Court. When the case was pending before the 8fi Court, complainant gave an application on 4th May 1971 requesting the learned Magistrate that the complainant had alleged certain facts in the complaint which if prima facie accepted would indicate that offence under Section 467 read with Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code is committed and as this offence is exclusively triable by a Court of Session th...
Tag this Judgment!Shivprasad Umashanker Vs. Municipality of Palitana
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-10-1972
Reported in: (1997)2GLR1460
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal raises an interesting question affecting the relationship of a Municipality and its Chief Officer under the provisions of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. The facts giving rise to the appeal are few and may be briefly stated as follows. Prior to the coming into force of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, Palitana Municipality was governed by the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901. The petitioner was appointed Chief Officer of the Palitana Municipality in January 1959 and this appointment was approved by the Collector by an order, dated 20th February 1965. Though in the appointment the petitioner was designated as Chief Officer, there was no statutory office of Chief Officer under the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901. It was only under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, that a statutory office of Chief Officer was created for the first time. Palitana Municipality, therefore, on the coming into force of the Gujarat Municipal...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›