Gujarat Court October 1952 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
State of Saurashtra Vs. Pitambar Savjibhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-1952
Reported in: (1954)ILLJ138Guj
Shah, C.J.1. The only point arising in this appeal is whether the factory inspector can, under Section 9(b), Indian Factories Act, require the production of any register or other document at a place outside the factory premises and whether the failure to comply with a notice under Rule 102, Saurashtra Factories Rules, renders the proprietor of the factory liable under Section 92, Factories Act. The factory inspector had gone to inspect the factory of the respondent known as the Mourvi Bolts and Iron Works situated at Mourvi on 23 August 1950. The respondent who is the proprietor and manager of the factory was not present at the time. The inspector thereafter sent a notice to the respondent purporting to be under Rule 102 of the rules framed under the Factories Act stating that Umiashankar Govindji, who was present at the time of his visit to the factory, could not produce certain registers and accounts, that he had left instructions that the said registers, etc., should be shown to him...
State Vs. Pitambar Savjibhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1529
Shah, C.J.1. The only point arising in this appeal is whether the Factory Inspector can, under Section 9(b), Indian Factories Act require the production of any register or other document at a place outside the factory premises and whether the failure to comply with a notice under Section 102, Saurashtra Factories Rules renders the proprietor of the factory liable under Section 92, Factories Act. The Factory Inspector had gone to inspect the factory of the respondent known as the Morvi Bolts and Iron Works situated at Morvi, on 23.8.1950. The respondent who is the proprietor and-manager of the factory was not present at the time. The Inspector thereafter sent a notice to the respondent purporting to be under Rule 102 of the Rules framed under the Factories Act stating that Umashanker Govindji, who was present at the time of his visit to the factory, could not produce certain registers and accounts, that he had left instructions that the said registers etc., should be shown to him at the...
ibrahim A. Karim Vs. State of anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-06-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1263
Baxi, J.1. The facts leading to this reference as stated by the learned Sessions Judge, Sorath Division are briefly as under. The complainant opponent 2 is the Chairman and a member of the Veraval Municipality and the applicants are its members. The opponent filed a complaint against the applicants in the .Court of the First Class Magistrate Veraval in which he alleges that on 26.2.1951 they sent an application concerning him to the ad hoc committee of the Veraval Nagrik Sangh on whose ticket they had been elected to the Municipality. They are also alleged to have sent an advance copy of the resolution expressing want of confidence in him to the Nagrik Sangh and to the Collector, Sorath Division and on 16.3.51 they moved the resolution and an amendment in a meeting of the Municipality. It is further stated that the above-mentioned letters and the resolution and the amendment thereto contained defamatory statements concerning the opponent and the applicants had therefore committed offen...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›