Gujarat Court April 1981 Judgments
Ashok Jesang Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-02-1981
Reported in: (1982)1GLR49
S.L. Talati, J.1. The petitioner was the accused in Sessions Case No. 43 of 1980. He had submitted an application-Exh.6 which was decided on 7th October, 1980 and the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Okhamandal-Dwarka was directed to determine the age of the accused. The learned Magistrate was also directed to decide as to whether the Saurashtra Children Act was applicable to the accused or not. The Learned Magistrate by his order, dated 31-12-1980 came to the conclusion that the age of the accused was between 17 and 18 years. However, he came to the conclusion that as the offence was committed in Dwarka, the Saurashtra Children Act would not be applicable and the accused would be governed by the Bombay Children Act.2. It may here be stated that the Learned Magistrate examined as many as five witnesses and on facts he came to the conclusion that the age of the accused was between 17 and 18 years.3. We have gone through the evidence and it clearly appears that the view taken by the Lear...
Tag this Judgment!Simac Group (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Verb Deutsche Seereederai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-02-1981
Reported in: (1982)1GLR268
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is an Appeal from Order brought to this court by the original plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 3 of the Special Civil Suit No. 81 of 1972, being aggrieved by the order dated 20-7-77 passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD) Jamnagar, ordering the return of the plaint to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper court.2. The appellant No. 1 Simac Group (India) Pvt. Ltd. incorporated under the Companies Act and having its office at Bombay is the plaintiff No. 1 in the suit. This company is manufacturing knitting machines. This company bad entered into an agreement with the plaintiff No. 2 to sell some of those machines. The plaintiff No. 2, is a company at Mohrenstrassee in Berlin in the German Democratic Republic. The plaintiff no. 3 is the Insurance Company, having its office at Bombay, now undertaken by the United India General Insurance Company, the State concern. The defendant No. 1, who is the respondent No. 1 herein, is Verb Deutsche Seereederai, which is a company hav...
Tag this Judgment!SalambIn Amar Dowdi Vs. HuseinbIn Salam Dowdi and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-01-1981
Reported in: (1981)22GLR1246
V.V. Bedarkar, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the original plaintiff whose suit, being Civil Suit No. 47 of 1972, was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dharampur, with costs, holding that the appellant-plaintiff was entitled to 1/7th share in the immovable property and to 1/2 share in the movable property. But he observed that it would not be possible to divide 1/7th and 1/2 shares in the immovable and movable properties and hand them over to the plaintiff, and the actual partition of both the properties would cause delay and expenses, and so the plaintiff be given alternative remedy and, therefore, he decreed the amount of Rs. 1,000/- as claimed by the plaintiff. He further ordered that the plaintiff may recover the decretal amount, from the person and properties of the defendants with 6 per cent interest from the date of decree till realisation.2. Being dissatisfied with that order of the trial Court awarding a specific amount of Rs. 1,000/- instead of giving a sh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›