Gujarat Court March 1974 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Laxmiben and ors. Vs. Chandrawadan Chhotalal Soratwalla and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-27-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Guj101; (1975)0GLR494
1. This is a second appeal by the heirs of original defendant No. 1 which was opened but not argued by the learned counsel for the appellants on realising that what he considered to be a grievance was not in point of fact a grievance and that he was labouring under some misconception.2. The suit giving rise to the present appeal was instituted on October 22, 1956 an behalf of a minor admitted to the benefits of a partnership, The suit was commenced under sub-section (4) of Section 30 for taking accounts of his share and for payment thereof to him and for, severing his connection from the firm. The trial Court decreed the suit and passed a preliminary decree on October 20, 1967. The relevant direction was incorporated in clause (1) of paragraph 28 of the judgment of the trial Court. By virtue of the said direction it was declared : 'connection of Plaintiff Chandrawadan Chhotalal was severed with the suit firm an and from the date of the filing of the suit'. Now, admittedly the date of t...
Chimanlal Narsibhai Vs. Amratlal Chhotalal Shah and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-21-1974
Reported in: AIR1974Guj218; (1975)0GLR22
1. Both these appeals arise out of the suits filed by the appellant Chimanlal Narsibhai Patel against the respondents for the recovery of different amounts of compensation for the use of the suit premises as tenants. The suits were filed in City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, where they were registered as, Civil Suits Nos. 448 and 449 of 1963. The said court has finally decreed both the suits but has rejected the plaintiff's claim for compensation for the period from 14th December 1957 to 30th April 1959 and, therefore, the plaintiff's claim only for this--period remains to be considered these appeals. Before the lower court there was a dispute between the parties as regards the rate of compensation but that dispute now does not survive as during the course of these appeals Shri Patel, the learned advocate of the plaintiff, has accepted the lower court's finding as regards the rate of compensation.2. Following are the brief facts, which explain the background of the dispute between the partie...
State of Gujarat Vs. Dahiben, Widow of Premchandbhai Kalidas Thakkar a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-19-1974
Reported in: (1975)16GLR606
S.H. Sheth, J.1. Seven plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 1124 of 1967 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad for recovering a sum of Rs. 25,000/-from the defendant. The amount was claimed from the defendant who is a doctor on the ground that he had been negligent in performing his duties on account of which one Premchand died. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs Nos. 1, 6 and 7 and dismissed the claim made by the other plaintiffs on the ground that they were not the dependents of the deceased Premchand. Strangely enough all the plaintiffs appealed against that decree. It was First Appeal No. 356 of 1970.2. At the time of the admission hearing of the appeal this Court directed the Taxing Officer to inquire into the adequacy of the Court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal. It may be stated at this stage that First Appeal No. 356 of 1970 was filed by the plaintiffs on a Court-fee of Rs. 30/. The Taxing Officer inquired into the matter and by his order dated 24th Dec...
Snehalkumar Sarabhai Vs. Economic Transport Organisation and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Guj72
ORDER1. Not infrequently the Courts slam the door of the temple of justice in the face of a Pilgrim (who has admittedly been wronged) at the behest of the 'Proved wrongdoer solely on the ground that he has knocked at a different door. So often the Court considers itself to be helpless and turns away the hapless Pilgrim under a mistaken assumption that entry is barred from the said door. The present case illustrates the point. Having recorded a clear finding that opponent No. 1 (original defendant No. 1), a Public Carrier, had failed to deliver a consignment of goods worth Rs, 1,207.92 to the Petitioner Plaintiff without any just cause and on merits was liable to reimburse him for the loss, the trial Court (at Ahmedabad) has refused to Pass a decree granting relief solely on the ground that there was a printed clause at the back of the transport receipt obliging the consignor to institute a suit in the Calcutta Court only.2. X X X X X3. While parties can lawfully enter into an agreement...
Shirishkumar Mayachandbhai Modi Vs. the Collector and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-15-1974
Reported in: (1975)16GLR703
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioner is the President of Palanpur Municipality. The respondent No. 2 was elected as a member of the municipality to a seat reserved for the Scheduled Castes. The respondent No. 1 Is the Collector of Banaskantha. On 2nd July 1973 the petitioner received from the respondent No. 2 a letter purporting to be a letter of resignation. That letter of resignation was delivered at his place by the postman at 3-15 p.m. on that day. It appears that he was not at home at that time. He, therefore, received it at 8 p.m. He endorsed on that letter of resignation that the respondent No. 2 on account of the said resignation ceased to be a member of the municipality and that the seat had fallen vacant. He, therefore, ordered that the vacancy caused by the resignation of the respondent No. 2 should be reported to the Collector of Banaskantha. At 9 p.m. the same day the Chief Officer of the municipality gave him a letter from the respondent No. 2 in which It was stated that the a...
Sirinbai D. Daruwala Vs. Edalji Dhanjisha Anklesaria
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-14-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Guj102; (1975)0GLR204
1. The question which is involved in this matter is whether the learned trial Judge of the 9th City Civil Court Ahmedabad was justified in rejecting the appellant's prayer to number the petition for probate filed by the respondent, as a suit, and to treat the same as such under Rule 201 of Ahmedabad City Civil Court Rules. The order which is attacked in this matter is passed by the learned Judge in Civil Misc. Application No. 176/72 of his file and is sought to be challenged in this appeal.2. Shri Mankad, the learned advocate of the respondent, has, however, raised a preliminary objection to this appeal by contending that the order against which the appellant has made the grievance is not appealable and hence this appeal is not competent.3. Short facts of the case are that the respondent has filed an application for probate in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act. The probate which is sought is with regard to the will said to have been execute...
Navnitlal Sakarlal Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Gujarat I
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-02-1974
Reported in: [1977]106ITR512(Guj)
P.D. Desai J.1. This reference, made at the instance of the assessee under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), relates to the assessment to wealth-tax made on the assessee for the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65, in respect of certain properties which devolved upon him under a will and the principal considerations is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the said properties could be said to be assets belonging to the assessee on the relevant valuation dates, namely, December 31, 1962, and December 31, 1963, and therefore, liable to be taken into account in determining the net wealth of the assessee ?' 2. It is necessary to state a few facts in order to appreciate the points raised for our determination and they may be first set out. 3. One Balabhai Damodardas was the grand-father of the assessee. He was possessed of considerable movable properties acquired by his personal skill and labour and held in his indivi...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›