Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1962Guj128; (1962)0GLR269
Desai, C.J. 1. This Special Full Bench has been constituted in order to consider the question relating to the binding nature of the judicial precedents of the Bombay High Court prior to 1st May, 1960, on this High Court. This very matter was considered by a Full Bench of three Judges of this Court including the then Chief Justice in the case of Anand Municipality v. Union of India, reported in : AIR1960Guj40 . Later on, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Mr. Justice Raju and Mr. Justice Bakshi found it difficult to accept the view expressed by the Full Bench in the aforesaid case and made a request for referring the question to another Full Bench for a re-consideration of the matter. It was held by the Full Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case of (1960) 1 Guj LR 82 : (AIR 1960 Gujarat 40) (FB) that the judicial precedents of the Bombay High Court prior to the 1st of May, 1960, i. e., the day on which the State of Gujarat came into being fell within the ambit of the words...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1962)3GLR512
K.T. Desai, C.J.1. This second appeal raises an important question of law in action with the period of limitation for execution of orders which are to be deemed to be decrees of a Civil Court on a certificate being signed by the Registrar under the provisions of Section 89(1)(a) of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act 1925 In view of the importance of the matter Justice Bakshi before whom the matter first appeared has referred the same to a Division Bench.2. The facts giving rise to this second appeal briefly stated are the following: The respondent society is a co-operative society which was registered under the Baroda Co-operative Societies Act. The appellant was a member of that society. Disputes arose between the first respondent and the appellant. The same were referred to the Registrars nominee for decision under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. On 28th April 1942 the Registrars nominee made an award against the appellant as the principal debtor and against respondents 2 and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1962)3GLR574
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This Revision Application arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant to recover possession of certain premises situate on Dudheshwar Road Ahmedabad. The premises consist of a structure known as Chhagan Kishor Iron Factory. It appears that from 1931 the defendant was in possession of the premises as a tenant of the plaintiffs. A deed of lease was executed by the between the plaintiffs and the defendant on 28 the November 1942 whereby a lease of the premises was granted by the plaintiffs to be defendant for a period of five years from 1st February 1942 at the rent and on the terms and conditions contained in the deed of lease. There was some dispute between the parties as to whether the plaintiffs were the lessors under the deed of lease or whether the lessors were Dhirajlal Khushaldas and Company Agents of the plaintiffs. I shall discuss this aspect of the matter later but for the purpose of the present narration I shall proceed on the basis t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1963Guj185
ORDERV.B. Raju, J. 1. The learned District Judge of Kutch held in Regular Civil Appeal No. 72 of 1956 that the original suit was cot out of time and therefore set aside the decree of the trial Court which dismissed the suit as having been barred by limitation. In revision it is contended by the petitioner, who is the original defendant, that the appellate Judge committed a gross irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction by holding that the suit was in time.2. Therefore, the question is one of limitation and the following facts have to be borne in mind. The cause of action arose in Kutch State. The Khata in question has been executed in Kutch State on 14-4-48. The Kutch State was integrated in the Union of India and came to be classified as a C Class State. By Notification No. I27(C)-J,dated 31st July, 1949, the Government of India applied the Indian Limitation Act to Kutch and the Notification was styled as 'the Kutch Application of Laws Order, 1949'. By the said order, the Indi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1962Guj88; (1962)0GLR204
Shelat, J. 1. This petition raises questions of considerable importance regarding the construction of certain provisions of the Gujarat University Act, 1949, the Impact of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution on those provisions and the competence of the State Legislature to enact them. The facts giving rise to this petition are few and for the most part undisputed and may be briefly stated.2. The petitioner is the father of Shrikant, at present studying in St. Xavier's College, which is affiliated to the University of Gujarat under the Gujarat University Act, 1949. Shrikant took his Secondary education in P. G. T. High School, Bombay, and M. S. N. High School, Ahmedabad, and passed his S. S. C. examination in June 1960. The medium of instruction as well as examination throughout the period of his Secondary education was Marathi. He took the S. S. C. Examination in Marathi and his mother-tongue is also Marathi. His aim was and continues to be, as stated in the petition, to gualify hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1963Guj28; (1963)GLR242
V.B. Raju, J.1. This civil revision raises an important question as to whether the award of an arbitrator without the intervention of the Court creating a charge on immoveable property worth more than Rs. 100/- requires to be registered before it is filed under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act and followed by a judgment and decree as provided in section 17 of that Act. The award was !or the payment of Rs. 8,000/- and it also provided that a charge should be kept on immoveable property worth more than Rs. 100/-. The learned Judge, therefore, held that the award required registration and refused to accept such an award for the purpose of passing a decree in terms of it. He, therefore, rejected the prayer of the arbitrator, who filed the award, to pass a decree in terms of it.2. In revision, it is contended that this view is erroneous in view of the decision in Seonarain Lal v. Prabhu Chand : AIR1958Pat252 , which is a judgment of a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1964Guj30; (1964)0GLR82
P.N. Bhagwati, J. 1. This appeal raises a short but interesting question relating to the construction of Section 22A of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The question, is one of considerable importance and consequence and is certainly not free from difficulty. The task of determination has, however, been rendered considerably easier by the very able assistance received by me from the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the parties and having regard to the full and detailed arguments which have been advanced before me on both sides. I think it right and proper that I should give in some detail my reasons for the conclusion which I have reached on this rather difficult question of construction. The facts giving rise to this appeal are few and for the most part undisputed and may be briefly stated as follows.2. The plaintiff is a Municipality for the Municipal Borough of Nadiad established under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. The defendant has been granted a licence to suppl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1963Guj48; (1963)0GLR247
Shelat, J.1. The question arising in this application is with regard to the effect of the change made in the definition of 'foreigner' in the Foreigners Laws (Amendment) Act, XI of 1957.2. The petitioner was born in Anjar (Kutch) in 1909. He was educated at Anjar and lived with his paternal uncle one Alimahomed, a Sanadi Vakil of Anjar. Until September 1947, he worked as a clerk of his uncle. Prior thereto, in 1942, he was nominated as a member of the Municipality of Anjar. It was said that sometime in September 1947, differences of opinion arose between him and his uncle and, therefore, he left India and went to Pakistan. He lived in Karachi front September 1947 until June 1956 and during that period he worked as a salesman and maintained himself out of the remuneration earned by him as a salesman. On June 11, 1956, he made an application to the Government of India for a permit for permanent resettlement. That was while he was still in Karachi. No such permit has yet been granted to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1963Guj152; (1963)GLR514
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. The petitioner filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. against his wife VimaI on the ground that she was living in adultery with one Madnukar, opponent No. 2. He also claimed Rs. 10,000/- as damages from Madhukar. Ths learned Civil Judge held that the claim for damages was not tenable in proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act. It is against this order that the present revision application has been filed.2. In revision, it is contended that under Rule 5 at the Bombay High Court Rules, it is obligatory for a petitioner who files a petition for divorce on the ground ofadultery, to name and cite the co-respondent. It is, therefore, urged that under Order 2, Rule 2, and Order 2 Rule 3, C. P. Code, the claim for damages against an adulterer can be joined in the petition for divorce in view of the provisions of Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage ACI, 1955. It is also contended that under the Hindu Marriage Act, the forms attached to ...
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!