Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2002)2GLR1100
H.H. Mehta, J.1. The original accused No. 2 of Criminal Case No. 1106 of 1997 which is still pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 16, Ahmedabad (for short 'the learned Magistrate') has by filing this Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, challenged correctness, legality and propriety of judgment Exh. 14 dated 15th September, 1999, rendered by me learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (for short 'the learned Judge of the Revisional Court') in Criminal Revision Application No. 148 of 1999.2. Here in this Criminal Revision Application, the Revision-Petitioner is an original accused No. 2 while revision opponents No. 1 and 2 are complainant and accused No. 1 respectively. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to hereinafter as 'complainant' and 'accused No. 1 and 2' respectively at appropriate places.3. The facts leading to this Criminal Revision Applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1962)3GLR33
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Gujarat against the acquittal of the respondent who was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 34 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act for having contravened Section 18(2) of the same Act in that he did not send copies of the accounts in respect of three money-lending transactions dated 24-12-57 27 and 30-12-57 relating to loans advanced by him to Kisnad Group Co-operative Multi-purpose Society. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Broach who tried the case acquitted the respondent on the ground that a loan to a Co-operative society was not included in the definition of loan contained in Section 2(9) of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act. On this ground he acquitted the respondent although according to the Magistrate all the facts about the advancing of the loans were admitted by the respondent who was accused.2. In appeal it is contended by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State that the view taken...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2007Guj77
R.S. Garg, J.1. The defendant being aggrieved by Judgement and Decree dated 8th February, 1982 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Rajkot at Gondal in Regular Civil Appeal No.19 of 1978, confirming the judgement and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge at Dhoraji on 30th January, 1978 in Regular Civil Suit No. 110 of 1976, whereunder the suit of the plaintiff on his easementary right was decreed. 2. The appeal has been admitted for hearing the parties on the following substantial questions of law:(1) Whether the document Ex.58 is inadmissible in evidence as it is not registered as required by the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Registration Act? If yes, can it not be used for the limited purpose of pointing out that the so called easement right was only permissible, in view of the agreement with the plaintiff's predecessor in title under the said document? 2) Whether necessary ingredients of Section 35 of the Easement Act are satisfied for the purpose of grant of injunc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.8.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.705 of 2006 preferred by the appellant, original writ petitioner herein challenging the action of the respondent-Corporation in terminating her as an agent and forfeiting of commission due and payable to the appellant for all times to come. Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition confirming the order passed by respondent-Corporation terminating the agency of the appellant and also confirmed the order with regard to the forfeiture of commissions.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present appeal can be summarized as under:2.1 The appellant original writ petitioner was working as an agent of the respondent-Corporation attached to CBO- 14/83Z Ahmedabad Divisional Office, Ahmedabad. The respondent is a Corporation duly constituted under the provisions of the Life Insurance Act, 1956. The appellant introduced a proposal on the li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2004Guj274; (2004)2GLR1352
P. B. Majmudar, J. 1. The petitioner of this Civil Revision Application is the original opponent of Execution Petition No. 610 of 2001, pending before the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. The said petition is preferred by the present respondent, Tata International Ltd., for enforcement of a foreign award. In the aforesaid application, the petitioner herein, who is the original opponent of that application has raised various preliminary objections, which are negatived by the trial Court. The petitioner-original opponent has approached this Court by way of this revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. Since, the present petitioner has also filed a suit for declaration and injunction, which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) at Gandhidham, the present petitioner has also filed an application under Section 24 of C.P.C., being M.C.A. No. 1501 of 2002, for transfer of Execution Petition pending in the City Civil Court to the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) at Gandhidham. The present respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1971]80ITR291(Guj)
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. This is a reference made to us by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under section 54(1A) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. The question which arises for consideration on the reference is as to what is the proper article of the Act under which a creation instrument executed between the partners of Messrs. Velo Industries is chargeable. To determine the question it is necessary to refer briefly to a few facts giving rise to the reference. Prior to Aso Vad Amas Samvat year 2021, ten persons carried on business in partnership in the firm name of Messrs. Velo Industries. Three of them retired from the firm with effect from Aso Vad Amas Samvat year 2021 leaving the other seven as continuing partners of the firm. The terms and conditions of retirement were recorded in an instrument dated 24th October, 1963, executed by and between the partners and, since the entire controversy between the parties has turned on the true interpretation of this instrument, it would be de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1968Guj236; (1967)GLR649
Bhagwati, J. (1) This revision application arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants to recover a sum of Rs. 3,600 being the amount of three instalments due and payable by defendants to the plaintiffs under a document Exhibit 4/1 executed by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also relied on another document Exhibit 4/2 in support of this claim, though the claim was rested primarily on the document Exhibit 4/1. The defendants amongst various defense raised by them in the written statement urged that the documents. Ex. 4/1 and 4/2 were promissory notes and since they were inadequately stamped, they were not admissible in evidence. One of the issues framed by the trial Court, namely, issue No. 3, therefore, raised the question whether the documents Exhibits 4/1 and 4/2 were promissory notes and hence inadmissible in evidence. At the trial of the suit, when the plaintiff's partner Chimanlal Jagjivandas was in the witness-box and wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Present applicant is widow of one Rupabhai. Said Rupabhai had died in the year 1969 leaving his widow means present applicant, two minor sons and one minor daughter. Said Rupabhai owned agricultural lands admeasuring 113 acres, situated at village Balotri, Taluka Vav, District Banaskantha. Pursuant to amendment to Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 made effective from 1^st April, 1976, applicant filed declaration furnishing particulars of the lands held by her. Applicant having held land in excess of ceiling area, proceedings under the Act were initiated in Ceiling Case NO. 182/903/76. The Mamlatdar and ALT under his judgment and order dated 10^th August, 1982, hold that the applicant was entitled to retain one unit of ceiling area i.e. 54 acres of land. Lands to the extent of 59 acres 17 gunthas held by applicant were held to be surplus land. Feeling aggrieved, applicant preferred Ceiling Appeal NO. 98 of 1982 before the Deputy Collector, Tharad which was dismissed on 31^...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1976]46CompCas59(Guj)
D.A. Desai, J.1. One Shri Rajendrakumar Maneklal has filed this petition under section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, praying for an order sanctioning the scheme of compromise and arrangement between Hathising . (in liquidation) (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') and its members and creditors. 2. The company was incorporated on 14th July, 1897, under the Indian Companies Act, 1887. At the relevant time, its original authorised capital was Rs. 5,25,000, consisting of 525 equity shares of Rs. 1,000 each. Its issued, subscribed and paid up capital was Rs. 4,45,000 consisting of 445 equity shares of Rs. 1,000 each. Subsequently, by amendment and alteration of the capital clause of the memorandum of association, the issued, subscribed and paid up capital was Rs. 2,22,500. In all, 890 shares each of Rs. 250 fully paid were subscribed. The main object for which the company was incorporated was spinning of cotton yarn. In course of time, it had an installed capacity of 14,000 spind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1983]55CompCas623(Guj); [1984]147ITR294(Guj)
Desai, J.1. For the reasons to be declared hereafter, we hereby dismiss all the four appeals with no order as to costs. 2. At this stage, the appellants of appeals Nos. 13, 14 and 18 applied for leave under art. 133 of the Constitution today. We do not think that any substantial question of law of public importance is involved and that too required to be decided by the Supreme Court in this group of appeals. The oral leave is, therefore, rejected. Thereafter, oral motion was made for continuing the status quo today for a period of about a month. Mr. B. R. Shah, the learned advocate for the transferee-company, enumerated before us the various difficulties standing in their way. We appreciate the contention and, therefore, order that the copy of the reasons shall be made available to these three appellants as early as possible, but not later than 6th August, 1983, and the interim relief shall continue to operate only up to 31st August, 1983, but no further. A copy to be applied for urgen...
Tag this Judgment!