Gujarat Court October 1972 Judgments
State of Gujarat and ors. Vs. Thakore Hemsing Abhesing (Since Decd. Th ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-27-1972
Reported in: (1973)14GLR945
S.H. Sheth, J.1. This Civil Application has been filed to bring on record four heirs and legal representatives of the original respondent No. 1 Thakore Hemsing Abhesing. Thakore Hemsing Abhesing died on 15th February 1972. The State did not make any application within time to bring any of his heirs and legal representatives on record. Thereafter, Civil Application No. 1815 of 1972 was filed by the appellant-State to bring one heir and legal representative of the deceased Thakore Hemsing Abhesing on record. That application was very hotly contested by the heir who was sought to be brought on record on the ground that even though the State of Gujarat had known that Thakore Hemsing Abhesing had died as early as on 15th February 1972 it had not made any application within time for the purpose and had allowed the appeal to abate. Inspite of the fact that it was hotly contested, we showed to the State of Gujarat indulgence and granted that application on 9th October 1972 after setting aside ...
Tag this Judgment!Shanabhai Motibhai Vs. H.S. Rathod, P.S.i. Borsad and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-26-1972
Reported in: (1973)14GLR74
C.V. Rane, J.1. One Bhupatbhai Prabhatbhai Padhiar has filed a suit being civil suit No. 161 of 1971 in the court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Borsad, for obtaining certain declaration in respect of the lands bearing S. Nos. 374, 453, 454, 455 and 456 of the village Anklav taluka Borsad and also for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. The above lands admeasure 7 acres and 34 gunthas. The learned Civil Judge issued ad-interim injunction against the defendants. Thereafter, the injunction was confirmed on 27-10-1971. In the meanwhile, the Police sub-Inspector, Anklav, lodged a complaint in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Petlad, for taking action under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code). Acting on the above complaint, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate started proceedings under Section 145 of the Code and on the basis of the evidence adduced before him, he came to the conclusion...
Tag this Judgment!Lambha Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and anr. Vs. Distric ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-26-1972
Reported in: (1973)14GLR786
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioners in these two petitions challenge the rejection of the nomination paper which was filed at the ensuing election of the Directors of the Federal Society namely the Co-operative Bank in question by the Committee which was set up by the Board of Directors under the relevant rules. In the first petition on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 member Society and as its representative and as the member of the Managing Committee, petitioner No. 2 Khodabhai Chhaganbhai had filed the nomination for the ensuing election which was to be held on October 31, 1972. The said nomination was sought to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner No. 2 was carrying on money lending business. This decision was sought to be taken by the Respondent Election Committee on September 6, 1972 merely on the objection, but the Chairman of that Committee pointed out to the members that before rejecting the nomination the persons concerned must be heard and that the objectors should also ...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Dahi Vs. Amulakhbhai Gambhirbhai Barot
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Guj106; (1973)GLR801
1. The plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 58 of 19,68 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad against the defendant claiming possession of the suit premises under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.2. The defendant resisted the plaintiff's claim. It was inter alia contended that suit was not within time as contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 6 and that the City Civil Court had no Jurisdiction to try the suit by virtue of the provisions of Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act.3. Both these contentions were negatived by the learned trial Judge. On merits he held that the plaintiff was en- titled to possession and he, therefore, passed in favour of the plaintiff decree for possession.4. It is that decree which is challenged in this Civil Revision Application by the defendant.5. Mr. Jhaveri appearing for the defendant has raised before me the following three contentions.1. The suit was barred by time under sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Specific lie Relief Act, 1963.2. The City C...
Tag this Judgment!Mukta Jesing Vs. Vallabhadas Kalidas and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-24-1972
Reported in: 1974CriLJ121; (1973)GLR707
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This appeal was filed by original complainant Muktaben after obtaining special leave of the Court as required under Section 417(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal passed in favour of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh at Porbandar in Criminal Appeal No, 6 of 1971. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were convicted in Criminal Case No. 846 of 1969 by the learned Judicial Magistrate. First Class. Porbandar. Respondent No. 1 was convicted of an offence punish-able under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were convicted of an offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No. 1 was sentenced to suffer one month's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one week's further rigorous imprisonment. Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were sentenced to suffer one day's rigor...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Kashi Vs. Shah Mohanlal Somhand and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-23-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Guj110; (1973)GLR568
ORDER1. The Petitioner herein is the original objecting third party and the opponent No. 1 is a decree-holder. Opponents Nos. 2 and 3 are the judgment-debtors against whom the opponent No. 1 had obtained a decree The second opponent is related to the Petitioner in the sense that he is brother of the deceased husband of the Petitioner. The petitioner's husband had two brothers Somchand Sakarchand-2nd opponent herein and one Dahyabhai Sakarchand. Dahyabhai Sakarchand died during minority. On December 11, 1924 the deceased husband of the petitioner purchased a house on behalf of himself and as a guardian of his two younger brothers. This house was situated in Kashipura Dalwadi Wada, Borsad. After the death of Dahyabhai, the Petitioner's husband and the second opponent became co-owners of the said house and after the death of the petitioner's husband the petitioner has been residing on the ground floor portion of the house and the second opponent was in, possession of the first floor porti...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat and anr. Vs. Ibrahim Akabarali and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Guj54; (1973)GLR761
S.H. Sheth, J.1. These appeals arise under the following circumstances. The plaintiff in First Appeal No. 459 of 1974 is a forest contractor (hereinafter referred to as the contractor) One Arvindkumar Ambala Purohit was the Dumaldar of Kosum and Chimli villages in the former Chhota-Udepur State. He held those villages as his proprietary Jagir. On 10th June 1948 Chhota State merged with the Province of Bombay, After merger the Government of Bombay recognized the Jagirdar's rights to his Jagir. On 11th June 1954 the Jagirdar agreed to sell all the trees of Kosum and Chimli villages to the Contractor. On 1st August 1954 the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act. 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Jagir Abolition Act, for the sake of brevity) came into force as a result of which the Jagirdar's Jagir was abolished. On 28th Augu1961 the Jagirdar executed in favour of the contractor a document by which he ratified the earlier agreement of 11th June 1954, It is the contr...
Tag this Judgment!Pathan Mukhtyarkhan Ajamkhan Vs. Pathan Usmankhan Rehmatkhan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-21-1972
Reported in: (1973)14GLR607
B.J. Divan, J.1. This revision application has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the orders passed in the first instance by the Mamlatdar and in revision by the Deputy Collector under the provisions of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906 (Bombay Act No. II of 1906). The petitioner in this revision application is the original defendant and the respondent is the original plaintiff. In 1963, the plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of the Mamlatdar, Mehsana, under the provisions of Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act complaining of an obstruction created in an alleged public way and the plaintiff contended that he had a right to pass along that public way; but because of the hedge put up by the defendant, that right of his was obstructed. The plaintiff is the owner of survey No. 338 of Tundali village in Mehsana Taluka; whereas the defendant is the owner of survey No. 337 of the same village and the plaintiff contended in his plaint that between survey No...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Moti Vela Vs. Bai Ladhi Vela and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-16-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Guj52
ORDER1. This revision application is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge (J. D.) Dhoraji, refusing leave to the Petitioner to sue in forma pauperism The suit was filed by the petitioner against her sisters and others for partition and possession of her share from the joint family properties belonging to the petitioner and respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3. As the Petitioner was not in a Position to pay court-fees, she applied for leave to sue in forma pauperis The trial court after hearing the evidence of the petitioner refused permission as the trial court found that the petitioner was residing with her husband who has sufficient properties to pay court-fees in question This order of the trial court is the subject-matter of this revision before me.2. At the time of hearing of this revision application Mr. P. K. Parekh the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner pointed out that the learned civil Judge has failed to exercise his Jurisdiction by inquiring into...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›