Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-26-1971
Reported in : [1971]41CompCas1023(Guj); (1972)GLR200
Bhagwati, C.J. 1. This appeal raises an interesting question of construction of section 446, sub-section (2), of the Companies Act, 1956. It arises out of an application made by the appellant under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for stay of Suit No. 1 of 1970, filed by the respondents against the appellant in this court. The suit came to be filed in the following circumstances. The first respondent, prior to its winding-up, entered into two contracts with the appellant for purchase of certain items of textile machinery and under the contracts the first respondent paid an aggregate sum of Rs. 39,852 to the appellant. The appellant was ready and wiling to deliver the contracted items of textile machinery to the first respondent against payment of the balance of the purchase price but the first respondent failed to take delivery owing to its difficult financial circumstances and the appellant, therefore, forfeited the sum of Rs. 39,852 on the basis that it represented earnest mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-06-1971
Reported in : AIR1972Guj9; (1972)0GLR137
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Junagadh in Civil Appeal No. 150 of 1964, where under he confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Junagadh, in Civil Suit No. 32 of 1963. That suit was filed by one Munshi Abdulla Miyan Mahmad Miyan, describing himself as the 'Rent Collector' of the house of Datar Estate Committee of Junagadh. The suit was filed for recovery of possession of the leased premises and arrears of rent on the ground that the appellant-tenant was a tenant in arrears. A valid notice to quit was given and the contractual tenancy was determinded. A notice contemplated under section 12 (2) of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act, 1951 (which will be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was given. That notice was not complied with and hence the suit was filed as contemplated under section 12 (2) of the Act. That notice was given under the instructions of bot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-29-1971
Reported in : 1972CriLJ945; (1972)GLR617
ORDERD.P. Desai, J.1. The original accused who are partners with the original complainant, have come to this Court for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4072 of 1970 instituted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Baroda. This case was instituted upon a complaint filed on May 27. 1970. before the learned Magistrate by the opponent No. 1. i. e. the original complainant who will here after be referred to as the complainant against the present petitioners original accused Nos. 1 and 2 who will hereafter be referred to as the accused persons. The complainant's case was that he and accused persons were partners of a firm known as Messrs Pate.& Comnany and that all the work and management of the said firm including the work of getting accounts written as well as the work of keeping cash balance was being done by the accused persons. The complainant it was alleged was busy with his own business running in the name of National Engineering Company at Nadiad before the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-16-1971
Reported in : AIR1972Guj204
1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge Judge, Mehsana, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 173 of 1969, confirming the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge (J. D.) Visnagar in Regular Civil Suit No. 142 of 1968 dismissing the said suit on the preliminary ground that the suit for redemption of mortgage under an alleged unregistered mortgage deed was not maintainable. The facts leading to this appeal are, shortly, as under:-2. The appellant Pandya Vinodrai Ramraj filed a suit against the respondents Nos. 1/1 to 1/4 who were the heirs and legal representatives of one Lavar Prabhudas Nathuram for redemption of mortgage of a house situated at Visnagar and alleged to have been created by the predecessors-in-title of the appellant and respondents Nos. 2 to 7 on January 19, 1910 for securing the repayment of the amount of Rs. 75/- lent by one Nathuram Dalchha who happened to be the grandfather of respondents Nos. 1/1 to 1/4. The appellant herein befor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-25-1971
Reported in : (1971)12GLR999
B.J. Divan, Ag. C.J.1. The petitioners in these two Special Criminal Applications are both accused persons in a case going on before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the City of Ahmedabad. The case, we are informed, has commenced on August 18, 1970, and it has been going on since then and involves, according to the prosecution, criminal misappropriation to the extent of Rs. 25 lakhs. It is the prosecution case that the accused entered into a conspiracy and did in pursuance of that conspiracy criminally misappropriate this amount from the funds of the Central Bank of India. The Bank has been joined as the second respondent in these two petitions.2. The grounds which have been set out in the two petitions are the same and common arguments have been advanced in both the petitions. The petitioner's case in Special Criminal Application No. 8 of 1971 is that this criminal case was instituted against the accused as a result of the first information report given by the Internal Audito...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-24-1971
Reported in : [1973]91ITR393(Guj)
Bhagwati, C.J.1. These references raise an interesting question of law relating to the scope of ambit of the charging provision in relation to capital gains tax. The question arises out of the assessments to incme-tax made on the assessees for the assessment year 1963-64. Prior to 18th February, 1961, the assessees and seven other persons carried on business in partnership in the firm name of Prajapati Tiles Company. The business of the firm was the manufacture of Mangalore tiles and this business was being carried on by the firm ever since its inception on 13th January, 1953. There were disputes between the partners of the firm and as a result of these disputes, the assesses retired form the firm with effect from 18th February, 1962, leaving the other seven as continuing partners of the firm. The terms and conditions of retirement were recorded in document dated 18th February, 1962, executed by and between the partners. This document was in the form of minutes of the proceedings of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-25-1971
Reported in : AIR1973Guj216
J.B. Mehta, J.1. Both the insurance companies of the two vehicles which were involved in this accident have filed appeals in these two matters; while the original claimants the widow and five minor children of the deceased have filed cross objections for getting their full claim of Rs. 29000/- by way of damages.2. The accident took place on October 25, 1967, the New Year Day of Samvat 2022 at about 9-30 a. m. when the deceased compounder in the ocmpany of head compounder Devendar Chandrashankar, Ex. 92, was going to the bungalow of the Civil Surgeon, Junagadh, situated in Datar Manzil at some distance away from the Monranjan Guest House to offer his New Year greetings. The deceased at that time was walking on the footpath near the triangular children garden adjacent to the District Library near Kalwa chawk and was proceeding towards Manoranjan Guest House. The truck in question came over on the footpath from the opposite direction and collided against the Baniyan tree which got uproote...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-30-1971
Reported in : (1972)GLR633
D.A. Desai, J. 1. This summons is taken out by the official liquidator of Ananta Mills Ltd. (in liquidation) (hereinafter referred to as' the company') praying for an order for raising the attachments levied by the first and second respondents on behalf of several creditors of the company and for a direction directing the second respondent to delete certain entries made in the record of rights in respect of the properties of the company pursuant to the aforementioned attachments. 2. The Indokem Private Ltd. filed Company Petition No. 8 of 1967 on March 24,1967, praying for an order for winding up the company. By an order made on September 11,1967, the company was ordered to be wound up and the official liquidator was appointed as liquidator of the company. On the same day, the liquidator took actual possession of the assets of the company. In the meanwhile, a scheme of compromise and/or arrangement between the company on the on hand and its different classes of creditors and members on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-12-1971
Reported in : AIR1973Guj80
ORDER1. At the outset of the hearing of the matter, Mr. V. J. Desai, appearing for the petitioners (judgment debtors Nos. 1 and 2). stated that no second appeal lay and only revision lay, as decided by a Division Bench of this court in Gandhi Gopaldas Gordhandas v. Bai Lalitabi Marghabhi. : AIR1971Guj270 and, therefore, request that leave the granted to covert this covert this second appeal into a Civil Revision Application and the request has been granted. The appellant will, therefore, be referred to as 'the petitioners' and the respondents will be referred to as 'the petitioners' hereafter.2. The facts leading rise to this revision petition briefly stated are as under:3. Opponent NO. 1 filed Civil Suit No. 268 of 1969 against the present petitioners for recovery of arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 642/-. Agreed amount of rent was Rs. 22/- per month. Opponent No. 2 was joined as a party in that suit on the basis that he was a surety. In that suit, possession in of the leased prop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-14-1971
Reported in : AIR1972Guj217
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 47 of the Civil P.C. against the order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division. Nadiad, in Special Darkhast No. 54 of 1968, dated 26th February, 1970.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as under:This Darkhast is filed by respondent No. 1, Patel Mohanbhai Nanabhai (original defendant No. 1) against the appellant-plaintiff for execution of the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 22 of 1951 - a partition suit between two brothers - on 15-3-1954. Respondent No. 2 (original defendant No. 2) was an alienee. We are not concerned with him in the present proceedings. Respondent No. 1 sought to recover Rs. 2,002/- plus the costs of the Darkhast, Rs. 7.88 plus the interest amount of Rs. 2,274.88 paise from the appellant. Under clause 6 of the decree, the appellant had undertaken an obligation to pay Rs. 1,001/- on the first occasion of the marriage or respondent No. 1's son or daughter. Rs. 1,0...
Tag this Judgment!