Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-17-1962
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
Decided on : Jan-24-1962
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
Decided on : Mar-22-1962
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
Decided on : Mar-28-1962
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
Decided on : Apr-27-1962
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
Decided on : Apr-30-1962
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
Decided on : May-01-1962
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!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : May-04-1962
Reported in : AIR1963Guj259; 1963CriLJ502; (1963)GLR209
Miabhoy, J.1. The petitioner Shri Indulal Kanaiyalal Yagnik has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. He challenges inter alia, the constitutionality of Clause (r), Sub-clause (iii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, (hereafter called the 'Act'), and the rules made thereunder. The challenge is on the ground that the clause and the rules are violative of Articles 19(1)(a) and 14 of the Constitution.The petitioner also challenges an order, dated 8th March 1961, passed by the second respondent, who is the Police Commissioner of Ahmedabad.The challenge is on the same grounds. The petitioner also challenges the act of the third respondent, by which the latter seized a microphone from petitioner's possession.2. A party bearing the name of 'Ahmedabad. Janata Samiti' was formed to contest the Municipal elections which were to be held at Ahmedabad in March 1961. The 'Samiti' put up 45 cor.didates at the election. The petitioner, who was the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-24-1962
Reported in : (1963)0GLR1001
1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal. Plaintiff joined service in the Gondal State as a jailor in 1927. He was serving as a jailor at Gondal in 1948 when the State of Gondal merged with the United States of Kathiawar. Plaintiff was absorbed as a servant of that State. Subsequently, he was transferred to Surendranagar in 1951 and, on or about 1 August, 1952, he was promoted as a senior jailor. Later on, he was transferred to Rajkot and demoted as an accountant. In 1953, he was serving as an accountant in the Central Jail at Rajkot. Whilst he was so serving, charges ware levelled against the plaintiff on the ground that, in or about 1952, whilst he was serving at Surendranagar, he had committed certain defaults by misappropriation of foodstuffs, maltreatment of prisoners and acceptance of illegal gratifications from them. Plaintiff was suspended on 25 March 1954 and, on 27 March 1954, he was served with a chargesheet making the aforesaid allegations against him. Plaintiff filed a writt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-30-1962
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!