Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1964Guj59; (1963)GLR1033
Shelat, C.J.1. These two petitions challenge the validity of Sections 2(10a), 59-C and 59-D of the Bombay Prohibition Act, XXV of 1949, certain rules made thereunder, the two notifications issued oy the Government of Gujarat dated April 6, 1962 and the order dated September 26, 1962, refusing the wholesalers licence and the pass to import French Polish and Varnish from outside the State of Gujarat. As both the petitions raise identical questions, it is expedient to dispose of both of them together by a common judgment.2. Both the petitioners carry on business as wholesale dealers in French Polish and Varnish and have been importing for their business these two articles from States such as Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, etc. The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 996 of 1962 have been importing on an average about 1500 gallons of French Polish per month and have been selling the same both wholesale and retail, the average monthly sale of French Polish coming to about 1500 gall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1968)9GLR511
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. A decree has been passed by the learned District Judge, Kaira at Nadiad, in Divorce Suit No. 1 of 1961 on 1st September 1961, by which the learned Judge has declared the marriage between the petitioner Kanku and the respondent Shanabhai null and void, subject to the declaration being confirmed by this Court under Section 20 of the Divorce Act, 1869 (hereafter called 'the Act'). The learned District Judge by his letter, dated 1st March 1962, has sent the proceedings in the suit to this Court for confirmation. The petition, which was numbered in the District Court as Suit No. 1 of 19 1, was made by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Act. It is common ground that the petitioner and the respondent were married about 14 years ago under Hindu marriage rites. The petitioner first filed Suit No. 4 of 1960 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nadiad, under the Hindu Marriage Act, 19SS, for dissolution of that marriage on the ground that the husband h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1964Guj174; (1964)0GLR678
V.B. Raju, J. 1. The appellant who was original defendant No. 1, is the widow of one Mahmadalli Ibrahimji who died on 8-10-1947. After his death, 5 persons filed a suit No. 31 of 1949 against 8 persons for administration of the properties of the deceased Mahmadalli Ibrahimji who was the uncle of defendant Nos. 1 to 5 (Sic) and maternal uncle of defendant Nos. 2 to 7. 2. The Civil Judge, J. D., Balasinar, granted a decree for administration and appointed a commissioner to work out of the partition of the properties of the deceased amongst his heirs. In appeal, the learned Assistant Judge at Nadiad dismissed the appeal with a slight variation ofthe decree passed by the lower court. The variation was that the administration should be in respect of 2/3rd of20 tolas of gold instead of 30 tolas of gold. The learnedAssistant Judge also upheld the finding of the trial court that the sale-deed of a house by the deceased Mahamadamexecuted by the deceased in favour of his wife defendant No. 1 was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1964Guj183; (1963)4GLR841
Bhagwati, J. 1. The short question which arises in this petition is whether the heirs of a person who is a deemed tenant under Section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1918, (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) are entitled to inherit the tenancy on the death of such person under the provisions of the Tenancy Act as it stood prior to its amendment by Bombay Act 13 of 1956 or whether the tenancy comes to an end on the death of such person? Various ingenious arguments have been advanced by Mr. B.G. Thakore, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, in support of the contention that the tenancy is heritable but they are all ill-founded and we cannot assent to any of them. On a true construction of the provisions of the Tenancy Act the tenancy is clearly not heritable and we shall briefly indicate our reasons for taking this view but before we do so, we may conveniently set out the facts giving rise to the petition. 2. The petitioner is the occupan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1963)4GLR817
J.M. Shelat, J.1. The controversy in this application centers round S. No. 357 situate in the village Antali Bhimji Taluka Dhandhuka District Ahmedabad. On May 31 1943 opponents 1 and 2 mortgaged this land to the Petitioner. In 1958 they filed suit No. 79 of 1958 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) at Dhandhuka against the petitioner praying for redemption of the mortgage and possession of the land. In that suit the petitioner contended that he was a protected tenant and therefore possession could not be taken from him by virtue of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 He also contended that he was a tenant long before the mortgage and that being so he was protected by the aforesaid Act. On these contentions the learned Civil Judge framed two issues. The first issue was whether the petitioner was a deemed tenant by virtue of his being a mortgagee in possession before the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 came into force and the sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1964Guj233; (1964)0GLR315
Bhagwati, J.1. This petition raises a short but interesting question of construction of certain provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act). This extra-ordinary and unique enactment has often been, described as a patchwork legislation framed without any scientific accuracy of language and this case affords one more justification of the rich volume of judicial vituperation it has evoked from many Judges in the past. The facts giving rise to this petition are not many and may be briefly stated as follows:2. There is a piece of land beaming Survey No. 223 situate in Navapura Falia of the Town of Kalol in the Panchmabals District. Prior to 1932, one Himatbhaiji held permanent leasehold rights in the land and he had constructed a small Kutcha shed on a part of the land. The petitioner having a money claim against Himatbhaiji and one Chuna Karson filed Suit No. 1189 of 1932 against them and the suit resulted in a decree in f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1963Guj330; 1963CriLJ615; (1964)0GLR42
Mody, J.1. The petitioner claims to be a British Subject and a citizen of the United Kingdom. He also claims to hold a passport issued by Colony and Protectorate of Kenya in Africa under the British Crown.2. In the year 1960 the petitioner was in Nairobi in Kenya. He left the continent of Africa from the port of Mombasa on January 3, 1961 to come to India. It appears that after the petitioner's departure from Kenya, a criminal complaint was filed against the petitioner for an alleged offence under Section 308 of the Penal Code in force in Kenya for obtaining, between December 30, 1960 and January 2, 1961, goods by false pretence fromvarious merchants in Nairobi. These offences werealleged to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrate's Court at Nairobi,It is not necessary to go into the details of allegations made against the petitioner in this writ application. It will be sufficient to state that the allegation was that the petitioner deposited 20 Shillings...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1963Guj195; (1963)GLR698
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is an application by the original plaintiff, who had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 94 of 1959 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Karjan for the recovery of Rs. 3700/- from two persons, who were attendants Nos. 1 and 2. In the suit defendant No. 2 was sought to be made liable because he was a member of a joint Hindu family consisting of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, although the promissory note was executed by defendant No. 1 alone.2. The plaintiff then gave an application for amending the plaint in the following terms:'In the alternative it is also prayed that both the defendants are the brothers and they have a joint undivided family and they have a joint family running cloth shop and that it is managed by the defendant No. 1. And for the business of the said shop the defendant No. 1 had purchased the cloth from the plaintiff and after settling the account thereof in the interest and benefit of the defendants' joint family, the defendant No. 1 as Manager o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1963)4GLR387
M.R. Mody, J.1. The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is again the Act which has given rise to these two civil revision applications. These two civil revisional applications have been filed by the respective petitioners against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sankheda on miscellaneous application No. 5 of 1960.In order to appreciate the points raised in this application it is necessary to mention a few facts and these facts are very simple. There is an immovable property bearing survey No. 274 in the village Morakhala in Kalol Taluka of the Panch Mahals District. This immovable property consisted of agricultural lands. This agricultural land was owned by one Kuberdas Sampatram the father of the opponents before me.Before the year 1939 Kuberdas Sampatram mortgaged these agricultural lands to one Tribhuvan Nathalal and Purshottam Gulab. In the year 1950 Kuberdas Sampatram filed a suit being regular civil su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1962)3GLR941
P.M. Bhagwati, J.1. This group of matters consists of four Revision Applications and one appeal. They all raise the same question and are therefore being disposed of by a common judgment. The question raised is a question of considerable importance and it is whether the holder of a statutory tenancy under the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) has power to sublet whole or part of the premises and thereby confer on the sub-tenant the benefit of the protective provision contained in Section 14 of the Rent Act. The facts giving rise to these matters are for the most part undisputed and may be briefly stated as follows.Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi is a Public Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 Chandrakant Chhotalal Gandhi and Kantilal Bhogilal Nanavati are the present trustees of that trust. By an Indenture of Lease dated 18th July 1949 the then trustees granted a lease of certain premises situate on Relie...
Tag this Judgment!