Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1968)GLR873
Bhagwati, C.J.1. This revision application is directed against an order passed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, granting leave to defend the suit on condition of depositing Rs. 4000 on or before 25th March, 1965. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants to recover a sum of Rs. 6,377.66 p, being the balance of the price in respect of bricks sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendants together with interest at nine per cent per annum. Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 were admittedly partners of the first defendant at the relevant time when the bricks are alleged to have been sold and delivered by the plaintiffs but it was the case of the defendants in the affidavits in reply that the first defendant was dissolved prior to the filing of the suit. The plaintiffs alleged that diverse quantities of bricks were sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendants from time to time between Samvat years 2017 to 2019 and in respect of the said transactions, an account wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1971)12GLR850
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. These appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are directed against two orders passed by N.G. Shelat, J. in Election Petition No. 18 of 1967. The facts giving rise to these appeals are common and for the most part undisputed and they may be briefly stated as follows.2. On 13th January 1967 the Governor of Gujarat issued a Notification under Section 15(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) calling upon all Assembly Constituencies in the State of Gujarat to elect members to the Legislative Assembly. The dates for various stages of the election were thereafter fixed by the election Commission by a Notification issued under Section 30 and a public notice was issued under Section 31 by the Retirement', Officer inviting nominations of candidates for the election. Nomination papers for the election from the Daskroi Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 68 were accordingly filed by nine candidates. But out of them seve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1968Guj218; 1968CriLJ1173; (1968)GLR886
(1) This is a an appeal, filed by the original accused, who has been convicted of offences, punishable under Section 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer the nine months' rigorous imprisonment and there months' rigorous imprisonment for the said offences respectively. He is also sentenced a pay of fine of Rs. 300 in addition to sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to suffer one month's further rigorous imprisonment. Out of the fine, if recovered, Rs. 150 are ordered to be paid to Shankerlal Chhabildas by way of compensation for the injuries caused to him. This order has been passed by the learned City Magistrate, 9th Court, Shri N. R. Tatia in a Criminal Case No. 464 of 1965.(2) The prosecution story is briefly stated as under:--The injured Shankerlal Chhablidas Barot and the appellant Jayantilal Vrajlal Barot are in two opposite factions of their community. The injured Shankerlal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1968Guj223; (1968)GLR177
Bhagwati, J. (1) The question which arises in this Revision Application is whether R. 142 to 148-A of the Ahmedabad City Civil Court Rules are ultra vires the rule-making power of the High Court. The plaintiff filed a suit being Summary Suit No. 1548 of 1966 against the defendants in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, to recover a sum of Rs. 7,734.07 ps., alleged to be due by the defendants to the plaintiff as remuneration for services rendered by the plaintiffs to the defendants in connection with their income-tax work. The suit was filed as a Summary Suit and on an appearance being filed by the defendants, a summons for judgment was taken out by the plaintiff. On the summons for judgment the learned Judge of the City Civil Court made a conditional order granting leave to the defendants to defend the suit on condition that the defendants deposited a sum of Rs. 1,900 within two weeks. The defendants were aggrieved by this order and they, therefore, preferred the present Revision Applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1967)8GLR779
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. On 26th July 1962 one Somaji Khodaji met with his death as a result of an accident caused by a motor truck within the area of the Mehsana District. At the date of the accident there was no Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Claims Tribunal) in existence for the area of the Mehsana District, but on 20th June 1963 such Claims Tribunal was constituted by the State Government by a notification issued under Section 110(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The legal representatives of Somaji Khodaji thereupon preferred an application before the Claims Tribunal on 24th July 1963 claiming compensation for the death of Somaji Khodaji, The application was directed against the owner of the motor truck, the driver of the motor truck and. the insurer with whom the motor truck was insured. The owner of the motor truck and the insurer resisted the application and amongst the various defences taken by them was one relating to the jurisdiction of the Clai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1966)7GLR597
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. These five petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 491(l)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act No. V of 1898). Each of the five petitioners was ordered to be detained by a separate order dated December 29, 1964, by the State of Gujarat. The orders are in identical terms. By those orders, the State of Gujarat directed, under Clauses (1) and (4) of Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, (hereafter called 'the Rules') that petitioners be detained in the Rajkot Central Prison. The orders stated that the State Government was satisfied in regard to the five petitioners that it was necessary to detain them with a view to preventing them from acting in any manner prejudicial to (i) the defence of India; (ii) the public safety; and (iii) the maintenance of public order. The orders are signed by the fourth respondent. In accordance with these orders, the five petitioners were arrested on December 30, 1964, and, since then, they ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1966Guj253; (1966)0GLR311
Shelat, C.J. 1. This petition raises the question of interpretation of the proviso to Section 43C, inserted in the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1948 by Amending Act 13 of 1966 and its effect upon the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in which the petitioners and their deceased brother Ambalal had tiled a suit for a decree for eviction, against their tenant, the original respondent No, 1 The petition came up for hearing before Divan J on February 24, 1964 who feeling that there was a conflict between two decisions of this Court, one an unreported decision in .Special Civil Appln. No. 105 of 1960 (Guj) decided by S.T. Desaf C J. and Raju J on January 19. 1961 and the other in Kalicharan v. Mahalaxmi : (1963)4GLR145 referred the case lo a larger Bench That is how this matter has come up before us. 2. Pending the hearing of this petition. the original respondent No. 1 died and respondents 1-A lo 1-G were brought on record as his heirs and legal representatives 3. Before we proc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1966)7GLR87
J.M. Shelat, C.J.1. Respondents 1 and 2 to this petition filed a suit, being Summary Suit No. 1462 of 1962, on December 12, 1962 for the recovery of Rs. 35,000/- said to have been advanced to the petitioner and respondent No. 3. According to respondents 1 and 2 these moneys were advanced from time to time on the request of the petitioner and respondent No. 3, and the aforesaid advances were made by cheques, drafts and sometimes in cash. Thereafter, respondents 1 and 2 took out a summons for judgment on January 31, 1963. In answer to that summons, the petitioner and the third respondent filed their respective affidavits in reply. The summons for judgment came up for hearing on February 28, 1963, when the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, passed an order granting conditional leave to defend provided that each of the two defendants, namely, the petitioner and the third respondent, furnished to the satisfaction of that Court adequate security in the sum of Rs. 32,000/-. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1966Guj149
Shelat, C.J.1. This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated February 27, 1951 which held that the claim for compensation filed by the petitioner in respect of the extinguishment of a grant in his favour fell under Section 15 of the Bombay Merged Territories and Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act) and for a mandamus directing the State of Gujarat to continue to pay to the petitioner and his descendants the sum of Rs. 12,522 annually, and, in the alternative, for a mandamus directing the State of Gujarat to pay to the petitioner as compensation the amount of Rs. 4,17,400, being the capitalised value of the said grant of Rs. 12,522 which came to be extinguished under Section 4 of the aforesaid Act.2. The petitioner is the descendant of one Mir Nazmuddinkhan who was the cousin of the Nawab of Surat and the Baxi of his forces in or about t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1965)6GLR934
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The question which arises in these Revision Applications is whether it is competent to a Judge of the City Civil Court to pass a conditional order when granting leave to defend under the provisions of Rule 142 Sub-rule (3) of the Ahmedabad City Civil Court Rules. The plaintiffs filed a suit being Summary Suit No. 1462 of 1962 against the defendants in the City Civil Court Ahmedabad to recover a sum of Rs. 32 0 alleged to be due by the defendants to the plaintiffs under certain promissory notes which the plaintiffs claimed had been executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit was filed as a Summary Suit and on the appearance being filed by the defendants a Summons for Judgment was taken out by the plaintiffs. On the Summons for Judgment the learned Judge granted unconditional leave to defend to the second defendant but so far as the first defendant was concerned the learned Judge made a conditional order granting leave to defend on c condition tha...
Tag this Judgment!