Gujarat Court January 1995 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.
Shyam Bhikhabhai and anr. Vs. the State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-23-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ136; (1996)1GLR19
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. As the common questions arise between common parties and out of common judgment and order, all these three matters are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In order to avoid repetition of facts, it will be sufficient to refer the facts which are identical and common in nature in all the three matters, like that in Criminal Revision Application No. 318 of 1989.3. The petitioners in this revision are the original accused persons. Respondent No. 2 is the Managing Trustee of Broach Panjarapole Sarvajanik Trust and respondent No. 3 is the original complainant. They are hereinafter referred to as the complainant, Panjarapol Trust and accused person for the sake of convenience and brevity.4. The original complainant-respondent No. 3 is the General Secretary of All India Krishi Go Seva Sangh. He is also the Convenor of Animal Welfare Board of India and also the President of Shri Gau Shala Panjarapole Sanstha, Malegaon, Dist. Nasik. He was also the President of Jain Osh...
Mahavir Cotton Co. Vs. Saurashtra Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Guj160; (1995)2GLR1394
R.A. Mehta, J. 1. The original plaintiffs are aggrieved by an order of the trial court directing the plaints to be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper court on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the plaint against the respondent Co-operative Spinning Mill. Admittedly the plaintiff are not members of the defendant Mill. It is a dispute between the non member and the society.2. The trial court has relied on the provisions, of Section 96(1)(c) which provides that any dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a society shall be referred to the Registrar if the parties thereto are one amongst the following:'(a) a person, other than a member of the society who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had transactions under the provisions of Section 46, and any person claiming through such a person;'Section 46 provides as follows:'46. Save as is provided in this Act, the transaction of a socie...
State of Gujarat Vs. Pradipkumar Gendalal Shah and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Guj178; (1995)2GLR1499
ORDERY.B. Bhatt, J.1. The State has filed the present revision under Section 115 of CPC, and the memo indicates that the subject matter of challenge is the order dated 21st July 1992 passed in Court-fee Reference No. 77/94 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1473/90 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Baroda.2. However, it appears that there is no such specific order of that date passed in the aforesaid Court-fee Reference.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the subject matter of challenge in the present revision is the disposal of the Court-fee Reference in question by order passed below Exh. 8 (which is apparently undated).4. The facts so far as are relevant and pertinent for the purpose of the present revision are as under:4.1 The first respondent as plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1473/90 contending that he was a holder of certain shares of the defendant company, that he had lost the relevant share certificates together with valid transfer forms and/or...
Mansukhlal Pujalal Vs. Assistant Collector, Jamnagar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-1995
Reported in: (1996)2GLR442
S.M. Soni, J.1. Rule. Mr. Champaneri waives service on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The petitioner has filed an Election Petition No. 1 of 1993 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Jamnagar challenging the election of Sarpanch of Gagva Gram Panchayat held on 27-12-1992. An application for interim relief praying for maintenance of status quo was also filed and it was ordered to maintain status quo on that application. However, said application is pending for final hearing.2. Pending final hearing of that application for interim relief, the petitioner applied for an order of discovery under Order 11 Rules 12, 13 and 14 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Code for short). Said application was filed to procure certain additional evidence to substantiate his application for interim relief. The learned Judge after hearing the parties, was pleased to dismiss the said application on the ground that procedure under the Code is not applicable to such cases.3. The petitioner being ...
Chaitanyakumar Harikrishanbhai Bhatt Vs. Naliniben C. Bhatt
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-1995
Reported in: (1995)2GLR1525
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner-husband challenges the order passed below applications Ex. 11 and Ex. 15 in H.M. Petition No. 328 of 1988, by the learned City Civil Court Judge, on 19-3-1991, allowing the application Ex. 11 filed by the respondent-wife and directing the petitioner-husband to pay to the respondent Rs. 250/- per month as interim maintenance for the minor daughter from the date of the petition, i.e., 19-9-1988 till disposal of the petition and Rs. 2,000/- towards expenses for the litigation. The application filed by the petitioner-husband for maintenance at Ex. 15 was dismissed.2. The petitioner filed a divorce petition against the respondent-wife on the allegations that she treated him with cruelty and that she had illicit relation with other person. A daughter was born to these parties. She was two years of age on the date of the Application Ex. 11 made by the respondent-wife. In the said application she has stated that she was serving at Poona and had to attend t...
Lataben Yogendrakumar Goswami Vs. Yogendrakumar Shankargir Goswami
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-20-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Guj103; (1996)1GLR111
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J. 1. This revision petition is directed by the petitioner against the order dated 16-2-1994 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Bharuch, in Execution Petition No. 53 of 1993 whereunder the execution application filed by the petitioner has been held to be not maintainable.2. To appreciate the controversy which has arisen the present revision application, few facts are to be stated. The respondent-husband, Yogendrakumar Shankargir Goswami, filed a petition being H.M.P. No. 43 of 1986 against the petitioner-wife, Lataben, for a decree of restoration of conjugal rights. On receipt of the notice of the aforesaid petition, the petitioner-wife put appearance in those proceedings. On 1-4-1988 the petitioner-wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in those proceedings for grant of interim alimony and expenses of litigation. That application was allowed by the learned trial Court and the husband-respondent was ordered to pay Rs. 200 per month a...
Dabgar Arvindkumar Keshavlal Vs. Shri Modh Ghancl Gnyati Samaj
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-20-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Guj148; (1995)1GLR864
ORDERR.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The petitioners have preferred this revision application in view of the fact that no appeal lies against a decree passed under Section 6(1) as provided in Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 2. The petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Patan in Regular Civil Suit No. 127 of 1976 on 30-4-1988 dismissing the suit of the petitioners. 3. The petitioners filed the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for restoration of the possession of the suit shop with mesne profits from 4th April, 1976 till the restoration of the shop. According to the petitioners they were in possession of the suit property bearing City Tika No. 11 /3.166 till 4th April, 1976. During the night of 4th April, 1976, the first wife of the uncle of the petitioner No. 2, Surajben and three others had removed the locks, entered the suit shop and taken away the goods and on 5th April, 1976 the possession of the suit shop wa...
Smt. Padma Vishnu Phatak Vs. Vishnu Vishwanath Phatak
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-20-1995
Reported in: (1995)2GLR1076
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 25-10-1993 passed below an application for interim maintenance under Section 20 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1965 (1955) in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 6 of 1991 passed by the learned 4th Extra Assistant Judge, Baroda by invoking provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code).2. The respondent is the husband who filed above suit against the petitioner-original defendant-wife for dissolution of marriage. The wife during the course of the proceedings in the said suit, preferred an application Ex. 7 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for alimony and expenses of the litigation on 7-2-1991, inter alia, contending that she has no independent means of source for her maintenance and litigation, whereas her husband is earning an amount more than Rs. 1,000/- by way of pension. The husband appeared and resisted the claim for interim maintenance. After considering the facts and circumstances, the trial Court ...
Patel Meghjibhai Vithalbhai Vs. Khetivadi Utpan Bazar Samiti
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-20-1995
Reported in: (1995)2GLR1497
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) at Upleta on 21st April 1992 below the Application at Exh. 15 in Regular Civil Suit No. 153 of 1986 rejecting the plaint of the petitioner herein is under challenge in this revisional application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code' for brief).2. The facts giving rise to this revisional application may be summarised thus: The petitioner as the plaintiff filed one suit for a decree in the sum of Rs. 5,226 against the respondent herein in the Court of the Civil Judge (J.D.) at Upleta. It came to be registered as Regular Civil Suit No. 153 of 1986. It was the case of the petitioner herein that he deposited Rs. 1,000 on 6th July 1986 and Rs. 4,000 on 8th July 1986 with the defendant towards allotment of one shop in the proposed construction undertaken by the defendant in the marketing yard. The respondent as the defendant without filing its written statement made an application under Order 7...
Bhogilal Girdharlal Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-20-1995
Reported in: (1996)2GLR142
M.R. Calla, J.1. This appeal under Section 104 read with Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been filed against the order dated 31st March 1983, whereby the application moved for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed.2. Special Civil Suit No. 44 of 1974 was filed by the State of Gujarat in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.) at Godhra for a sum of Rs. 1,20,778/- against the present appellant and the appellant Nos. 2 to 7 arrayed as respondents in the present appeal. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, the aforesaid suit was filed on 17th December 1974. 3. In the first instance, the summons which were issued to the defendants could not be served because the address of the defendants as was given by the plaintiff was not complete and proper. Later on, the summons were sent by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due, but these summons sent by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due were returned as served or unserved or not, could not be ascertained and the plain...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »