Gujarat Court May 1973 Judgments
Shushila Kesarbhai and ors. Vs. Bai Lilavati and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Guj39
Bhagwati, C.J.1. This reference to a Full Bench of seven Judges is necessitated because a question has arisen whether a decision given by a Full Bench of five Judges of the Bombay High Court in Bhuta v. I.Lakdu, 21 Bom LR 157 (AIR 1919 Bom 1) (FB) lays down the correct law. The point which has been referred to us for our opinion is, whether the procedure applicable in case of difference of opinion amongst Judges constituting a Division Bench where they are equally divided in opinion in the decision of an appeal from a subordinate Court is governed by section 98. sub-section (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or Clause 36 of the Letters Patent. The Full Bench of five Judges has taken the view in 21 Bom LR 157 = (AIR 1919 Bom 1) (FB) that in such a case. section 98, subsection (2) applies and not Clause 36 and this view taken by five Judges of the Bombay High Court is assailed in the present reference. The reference has been made by J. M. Sheth and B. K. Mehta, JJ. on a difference...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal Vadilal Vs. Ambica Iron and Steel Works Re. Rolling
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-1973
Reported in: (1974)15GLR474
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. This reference to a Full Bench of seven Judges is necessitated because a question has arisen whether a decision given by a Full Bench of five Judges of the Bombay High Court in Bhuta v. Lakdu 21 Bom. L.R. 157 lays down the correct law. The point which has been referred to us for our opinion is, whether the procedure applicable in case of difference of opinion amongst Judges constituting a Division Bench where they are equally divided in opinion in the decision of an appeal from a subordinate Court is governed by Section 98 Sub-section (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or Clause 36 of the Letters Patent. The Full Bench of five Judges has taken the view in Bhuta v. Lakdu that in such a case Section 98 Sub-section (2) applies and not Clause 36 and this view taken by five Judges of the Bombay High Court is assailed in the present reference. The reference has been made by J.M. Sheth B.K. Mehta JJ. on a difference of opinion arising between them in a First Appea...
Tag this Judgment!Bipinchandra Purshottamdas Patel and ors. Vs. Jashwant Lalbhai Naik an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-03-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Guj129; (1974)0GLR411
1. First Appeal No. 90 of 1973 has been filed by the appellants who were, along with respondent No. 1, trustees of the trust known as 'Shri Sanskar Bharti Trust', which was registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (which will be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Bulsar at Navsari, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 23 of 1969, filed by them under Section 72 of the Act against the order passed by the learned Charity Commissioner in suo motu scheme proceeding No. 311 of 1966 framing the scheme for the trust in question. The learned District Judge has dismissed the aforesaid civil application filed by the appellants under Section 72 of the Act. Respondent No. 2 is the Charity Commissioner.2-3. * * * 4. Mr. I. M. Nanavati, appearing for the appellants, made the following submissions.(1) On a true interpretation of Section 50A of the Act, the Charity Commissioner has jurisdiction to frame a scheme only in a case whe...
Tag this Judgment!Punjiben D/O. Rana Chhotalal Nanabhai anr. Vs. Mohanlal Mansukhbhai Ga ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-1973
Reported in: (1974)15GLR107
D.P. Desai, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to the claim of respondent-landlord (original plaintiff) to evict the appellants from business premises situated in Baroda. The premises consist of a shop; and admittedly one Chhotalal, father of appellant No. 1 was, at one point of time, the tenant thereof. As per the finding of the lower appellate Court, the tenancy of this Chhotalal was terminated by the landlord during Chhotalal's life time before instituting a suit against him. That was Civil Suit No. 1235 of 1956. That suit was compromised. However, the learned appellate Judge has found that Chhotalal was a statutory tenant on the day he died in March, 1960. This Chhotalal left behind him his widow Bai Hari and the only child Punjiben-appellant No. 1. As per the finding given by the Courts below, the widow and this daughter were staying with Chhotalal in Chhotalal's own house till his death. Chhotalal's widow carried on business in the rented premises till her death in February,...
Tag this Judgment!Chandanben and anr. Vs. the Receivers Appointed by the Baroda Court an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-01-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Guj163
ORDER1. This is a revision -petition filed 'by the petitioners-defend ants against the order -passed by the learned Third Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baroda, dated 29th December, 1972 in Special Civil Suit No. 16C of 1971 deciding issue No. 6 as a preliminary issue.2. The receivers - opponents filed Special Civil Suit No. 166 of 1971 in the Civil Court at Baroda for recovery of Rs. 15,500/-, the price of the goods supplied by the insolvents' partnership firm to the present petitioners.3. Manharlal Nathalal and Kantilal Nathalal were the partners of the said firm. Petitioners are sisters of the said insolvents. Insolvency proceeding was filed against 'them. It was Insolvency Proceeding No. 4 of 1970. That Insolvency Petition was filed on 29th April 1970 by the creditors of the insolvents. The aforesaid two partners, of the said firm were adjudged insolvent on 18th July, 1970. Present opponents were appointed receivers by the Insolvency Court in the said insolvency petition. The ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›