Gujarat Court February 1972 Judgments
Vadilal Somabhai and Co. and anr. Vs. the Municipal Corporation of the ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Guj274
1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment of the learned Judge, City Civil Court. 7th Court, Ahmedabad, dismissing Civil Suits Nos. 1191 of 1963, 1220 of 1963, 1196 of 1963, 1195 of 1963 and 1194 of 1963 with costs.2. The facts in all the appeals are identical. The plaintiff in each suit runs a restaurant in the city of Ahmedabad in the premises occupied by them as tenants. They brought the suits for a declaration that the notice issued by the defendant. Municipal Corporation was illegal, ultra vires, void and not enforceable and for an injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from enforcing the said notice and from cutting off the water supply granted by the Municipal Corporation to them. By a notice on each plaintiff, given by the Municipal Corporation which was identical in terms the Municipal Corporation informed the plaintiffs that the existing water supply was given to them without installing any meter. Under bye-law 15 of the Bye-law framed by the Municip...
Tag this Judgment!Vohra Habsu Vs. Shah Chhaganlal Devachand and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Guj203
1. Defendant No.6 - tenant of the mortgagee- has filed this appeal as both the Courts have while passing the decree for redemption of the suit mortgage ordered the defendants to deliver actual possession of the mortgaged property Mr. shah for the tenant at the outset tried to challenge the fact that the mortgage was duly proved. Mr. Shah cannot be permitted to do so as he is claiming title only under the mortgagees. Once the mortgagees passed Purshis, Ex.47, admitting the suit mortgage, redemption decree was rightly passed. The only question would be whether Khas possession would be given or such possession as this very property was capable of because of the terms of this very mortgage, but that question could surely be agitated by this tenant defendant No.6. Under the terms of the mortgage deed in question it is provided that possession was delivered of the house in question and the mortgagees could use or let the suit property or get the rental income in lieu of interest. The mortgag...
Tag this Judgment!Dahya Deva Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-1972
Reported in: (1973)14GLR184
D.A. Desai, J.1. Dahya Deva, original accused in Summary Case No. 874 of 1971, on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Railways, Viramgam, has filed this revision application against his conviction, for an offence under Section 104 of the Indian Railways Act, and sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 10/-, in default to suffer S.I. for one week.2. When this revision petition was taken up for hearing, a question was raised whether this Court should entertain this revision application, at this stage, when the applicant did not choose to move the Session Judge, who, could, as well, exercise the revisional jurisdiction, conferred upon him by Section 435 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 435(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that the High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within the local limits of its or his jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as t...
Tag this Judgment!Mahauva Municipality, Mahuva Vs. Mehta Kiritkumar Umedchand and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Guj97
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This revision petition raises an interesting question, as to whether the acquiring body for whose benefit the land which is proposed to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (which will be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is necessary or a proper party in the suit filed by a person interested in the land challenging the validity of the acquisition proceedings stated by the Government. The trial Court has held in Special Civil Suit No. 43 of 1971, in which this question arose for decision, against the Mahuva Municipality, the acquiring body (petitioner). The petitioner-municipality has, therefore, come in revision against that order, dated 8th July, 1971, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhavnagar, in that suit below Ex. 14.2. The learned Chief Justice who issued 'rule', has ordered this revision petition to heard by a Division Bench as two single Judge of this Court in two different revision petition have taken different views.3. Mr. ...
Tag this Judgment!Nathisand Kalyasang Vs. Jasubha Dansangji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Guj11; (1972)GLR996
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Application No. 802 of 1970 is filed against the order dated 13th February, 1970, rejecting the application dated 13th January, 1970 filed by the defendant requesting the learned Civil Judge to refer the subject-matter of Civil Suit No. 19 of 1968 to arbitration in view of arbitration agreement dated 4th January, 1970 entered into between the parties pending the suit. 2. Civil Suit No. 90 of 1968 was filed on 5th April, 1968. Pending the suit the plaintiff and the defendant entered into arbitration agreement with regard to subject-matter of the suit on 4th January, 1970. On 13th January, 1970, the plaintiff filed application Ext. 25 along with arbitration agreement dated 4th January, 1970 and requested the learned Judge to pass an order of reference according to the agreement. The defendant resisted the said application and inter alia contended that he did not agree to refer to the matter to arbitration and, therefore, the order of reference should not be pa...
Tag this Judgment!Petal Shakrabhi Armaram Vs. Bai Kanku
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Guj72; (1972)GLR963
1. This is appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Judge. City Civil Court 3rd Court Ahmedabad passed a preliminary decree of favour of the different as prayed for.2. The plaintiff Bai Kanku widow of Patel Trikmal Atmaram filed a suit on 12-9-1961 for partition of the immovable property of described in para 17 of the plaint claiming 1/3 share therein and for mesne profits. She also prayed for accounts of the income of the property form the 10-6-1938 and for the decree of 1/3 share from the said amount of income. According to the plaintiff her husband Trikumal Atmaram and defendant Shakrabhi Atmaram were their father Atmaram were the members of joint Hindu family. Tarikumal died on or about 15-12-1935 leaving behind him his three sons and one daughter and his widow -- the present plaintiff According to the plaintiff there was partition of the joint family properties in the life time of Trikumal and some property were kept joint and these properties bore municip...
Tag this Judgment!Kochrabhai Ishwarbhai Patel Vs. Gopalbahi C. Patal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Guj29
1. All these revision application arise out of the order granting the petitioner conditional leave to defined in different suits filed against him by the different opponents of there revisions application in the Court of small causes at Ahmedabad. The claim made by each of the opponents in all these suits if for the amount of Rs. 2,000/-. The contention of every opponents is that he has paid Rs. 2,000/- to the petitioner as deposit for becoming a member of the proposed 'Sudhashu Co-operative Housing Society'. According to the opponents after the receipt,. of the these amount the petitioner file din forming the Society and also failed in purchasing any land for the proposed society. The opponents, therefore claim that the petitioner should refund the amount of deposit given by each of them. As against this, the main contention, which is raised buy the petitioner in all these suit is that each of the opponents had paid the amount of Rs., 2,000/- not as deposit, but as contribution toward...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Charotar Tobacco Company
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-1972
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT426(Guj)
1.The plaintiff's suit having been decreed by the lower appellate court holding the order of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, dated May 31, 1962, as illegal and inoperative and restraining the Union of India from recovering the fine and duty imposed and for direction for return of the confiscated goods, the Union of India has filed this appeal. 2. There is no dispute that under the transfer permit, Ex. 38, whose copy and counterfoil are at Ex. Now. 44 and 60, the plaintiff got the goods in question from one A. J. Chaudhari. The said permit was for Chpadia Patti with Kandi. Even when the panchnama was made, there was no dispute that the goods found with the plaintiff were in conformity with this permit. There is equally no dispute that the permit is issued by the competent authority and it showed the duty, which was paid for the goods at Rs. 1.20. There is further no dispute that the duty for Chpadia Patti on that date was Rs. 1.20. Because there is a finding of fact, which cann...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Jebunnisa and anr. Vs. Gulamnabi Hakimbhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Guj106; (1972)GLR950
1. Plaintiff's administration suit for administrations of the property of the deceased Hakimbhai (father of the plaintiffs ) having been dismissed by the lower appellant Court as incompetent by reversing the trial Court's preliminary decree, the plaintiffs-daughters have filed this appeal. Hakimbhai Abdullabhai had first married Mariam, who did in about 1928. He married the other wife Halimabai, who was divorced in 1945. Though the first wife, the deceased had 2 sons, Gulamnabi, defendant No. 1, Alimohmed, defendant No. 2, and Ajijabai, defendant No. 4. Though Halimabai, he had one son, Nuruddin, defendant No. 3 and two daughters, plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff No. 2. Hakimbhai died on May 26, 1958. In this administration suit, the plaintiff had alleged that, in the lifetime of the deceased, there were, so-called, to partitions effected, at Ex. No. 117, dated January 5, 1949, and Ex. 118, dated November 27, 1957, which were illegal and inoperative and could not affect the plaintiffs' ti...
Tag this Judgment!Barot Chhabaji Mohanji and ors. Vs. Patel Joitaram Umedram and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Guj173; (1973)0GLR84
1. This appeal is directed against the decree passed by the learned District Judge, Mehsana in Civil Appeal No. 187 of 1966 by which he confirmed the decree passed by the Civil Judge. Junior Division . Vijapur, in Civil Suit No. 34 of 1963. The facts of the above suit were in the brief as under:Barot Kedarji Sankalhi and his brother Barot Mohanji had mortgaged the filed described in the plaint to Umed Jividas and his brother Shivram by executing a mortgage deed in their favor on 3-6-1925. Shivram Jividas sold his right in the mortgaged properties to his brother Umed on 17-6-1949. As the mortgage was with possession Umed Jividas was in possession of all the filed from 17-6-1974., Defendant No. 1 Chhabaji Mohanji who is the son of Mohanji Sanklaji filed an application fro adjustment of debts and redemption mortgage under the provisions of the Bombay Agriculture Debtors Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Deceased Umed Jividas and his heirs had also filed application under t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »