Gujarat Court November 1960 Judgments
State Vs. Baijnath Balsarai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-30-1960
Reported in: 1962CriLJ417; (1961)GLR717
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These three appeals involve common questions and will, therefore, be disposed of by a single judgment. The facts involved in the appeals are identical and it will, therefore, be convenient to set out the facts of only one of the appeals, namely, Criminal Apeal No. 212/1960.2. The respondent is the Manager of Shree Digvijay Woollen Mills Ltd., Jamnagar. The factory of the Company is situate in Jamnagar and is governed by the provisions of the Factories Act. 1948. It is common ground that at the material time a notice of periods of work for adults was displayed and correctly maintained in the factory of the Company as required by Section 61. The notice showed 7-00 a.m. to 11-00 a.m. and 11-30 a.m. to 3-30 pm- as the periods of work for adults wording in the first shift. The complainant, who is the Inspector of Factories, received a letter dated 8th June 1959 from the Joint Secretary, Digyijay Woollen Mills Kamdar Mandal, pointing out inter alia that though the time of...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Jilekhabai Adreman and anr. Vs. Competent Officer (Evacuee Interes ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-30-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Guj85; (1961)GLR181
Raju, J.1. C. F. A, No 665/60 is an appeal filed by the original plaintiffs whose suit against the Custodian, Evacuee Property, the Competent Officer (Evacuee Interest Separation) and six others was dismissed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Madhya Saurashtra, Gondal, who decided the suit on preliminary grounds. The suit was for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the heirs of one deceased Memon Karim Ibrahim, who had property at Upleta. The suit was based on a will said to have been executed by the deceased in favour of plaintiff No. 1, his widow. In the plaint the plaintiffs had stated that in respect of the property there were proceedings before the Custodian of Evacuee Property and also the Competent Officer. The two properties were sold for Rs. 22,500/- and Rs. 2050/-and it is stated in the plaint that these moneys are lying with the Custodian, Evacuee Property at Rajkot The plaintiffs filed the suit for a declaration that they are the sole heirs of the deceased Memon Karim...
Tag this Judgment!Joshi Jayantilal Laxmishankar Vs. the Gujarat State and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-28-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Guj297; (1961)2GLR454
Shelat, J. 1. By a deed of Ijara dated June 4, 1936, the then ruler of the State of Navanagar granted to the petitioner's father lands admeasuring 2300 acres situate in the villages Vadala and Pata Meghpar in consideration of the grantee paying a sum of Rs. 4128-4-0 as annual assessment. It appears that after the grant was made the petitioner-had several tenants settled on those lands and a village called Juvanpur was established there. It appears from Clause (5) of the Deed of Ijara that about 102 acres and 37 Gunthas, out of the 2300 acres were cultivable lands and were in fact cultivated by tenants residing in Mota Vadala and Pata Meghpar. The grantee was allowed to have the Services of these tenants for the first year but thereafter he was to engage other tenants and have them settled n these lauds. Clause (7) of the Ijara provided that the amount of Butta rights for 14 years was to be. credited to the names of the original, tenants of Butta lands included in these 2300 acres. So f...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Driver Mohmed Valli and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-25-1960
Reported in: (1961)2GLR222
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. This group of five appeals arises from five orders of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ghogho, in five cases by which he acquitted, in each case, under Section 247, Criminal Procedure Code, the accused of the offence punishable under Section 112, Motor Vehicles Act.2. The point which arises for determination in this group of appeals is common and this judgment will dispose of ail the five appeals.The facts in all the five appeals are the same and we shall mention the facts in Criminal-Appeal No. 32 of 1960 in order to understand the point raised before us. In that case, a complaint was filed against the respondent on 22-6-1959 by Shri N.A. Dave, Police Sub-Inspector, Crimes Branch, Amreli, for the offence punishable under Section 112, Motor Vehicles Act. The complaint was registered and, below the complaint, the learned Magistrate made the following order:Register the complaint. Issue summons under Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Fulabhai Kalidas Vs. Bhikhabhai Qadbadbhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-25-1960
Reported in: (1961)2GLR199
S.T. Desai, C.J.1. The petitioners are owners of a parcel of land bearing Survey No. 240I/A. They applied to the Collector under the relevant provisions contained in the Land Revenue Code for a permission to use the land for non-agricultural purposes- and obtained such permission. Then they filed a Tenancy Suit to terminate the tenancy of the tenants on the ground that they wanted the land for a non-agricultural purpose of their own, and that they bona fide required the land for that purpose. The Mamlatdar who tried the Tenancy Suit held that the petitioners did not bona fide require the land, and he dismissed the suit. The Deputy Distict Collector to whom an appeal was preferred reached a contrary conclusion. He held that the requirement of the petitioners was bona fide. It was contended before the Deputy Collector that possession of the land could not be given to the petitioners because to do so would be in violation of the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Con...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkot Motor Transport Co. (Private) Ltd. Vs. the Appellate Committee ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-24-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Guj89; (1961)GLR211
S.T. Desai, C.J.1. The petitioners are a Motor Transport Company which carries on business of stage carriage operators. The petitioners were plying their buses on several routes in Saurashtra. Their permit ill respect of those routes was due to expire on 30th October 1958 and on 26-8-1958 they applied for renewal of the same. On 4th October 1958, respondent No. 3, a co-operative society, applied for running its buses on the routes on which the petitioners were plying their buses. On 2nd January, 1959, the Regional Transport Authority, after bearing both the applications together decided against the petitioners and granted the necessary permit to respondent No. 3. There was an appeal against that decision and the order made in appeal was to remand the matter for determination of certain questions. On 13th July, 1959, the Regional Transport Authority decided the matter and reached the same conclusion as before. The petitioners preferred an appeal against that decision to the State Transp...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Hemrajsinhji Pravinsinhji Vs. Inspector General of Police Ahmedab ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-23-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Guj63; (1961)GLR202
Bakshi, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of dismissal from service passed against the petitioner by the Inspector General of Police, dated 24-1-1959 and confirmed by the State Government on 15-2-1960 and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service. The facts giving rise to this petition may be briefly stated:2. The petitioner was appointed a Sub Inspector in the Bombay Police Force in 1951 and was posted in Ahmedabad on 16-8-1953. He was charged with being in possession of liquor on the allegation that the bottles of liquor were found in an attache case on the platform of the Ajmer Railway Station, which belonged to the petitioner or was under his control. The defence of the petitioner as that the attache case neither belonged to him nor was under his control, and that these bottles elonged to one Mahendrasinh, who was working as his orderly. Both the petitioner and Mahendrasinh were tried before a Magistrate...
Tag this Judgment!Soni Tribhovandas Kalidas Vs. Limbdi Municipality and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-18-1960
Reported in: (1961)2GLR189
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is a revision application by one Soni Tribhovandas Kalidas who was accused No. 2 in Criminal Case No. 427 of 1959 and who is convicted in that case under Section 96(5) of the Bombay District Municipal Act hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. In the petition it is stated that after taking the permission of the Limbdi Municipality on 14-11-1935 the applicant constructed one window and two Jalias on the third floor of his house but subsequently on 14-7-36 the Thakore Saheb of Limbdi ordered him to close the said window and jalias. The applicant complied with the said order. But on 19-6-59 the applicant removed the construction which had blocked up the window and Jalias and the Limbdi Municipality filed a complaint for having opened them without obtaining the permission of the Municipality. The applicant was prosecuted by the Secretary of the Municipality and convicted under Section 96(5) of the Act. In revision before the learned Sessions Judge two contentions were r...
Tag this Judgment!Dadia Ottamchand Motichand and anr. Vs. Hemkunver Popatlal and the Sta ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-18-1960
Reported in: (1961)2GLR196
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Jamnagar recommending that the conviction of two persons Dadia Ottamchand Moti-chand and Dadia Manharlal Ottamchand under Section 504, Indian Penal Code, by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamnagar, be set aside. The two persons were also convicted under Section 323, Indian penal Code by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge observed that the conviction under Section 323, Indian penal Code was quite proper and did not justify any reference to the High Court. But, in regard to conviction under Section 504, Indian Penal Code, he made a reference holding that all that is proved is that the complainant who is woman by name Hemkunvar who is a tenant of the applicants was going to bring water from a common tap, and at that time Ottamchand tried to close the door and refused to allow her to go by that way. The woman however began to go inspite of the obstruction and thereupon both the applicants abused ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Heria Gimba
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-18-1960
Reported in: (1961)2GLR145
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is a criminal revision application by the-State for the enhancement of sentences passed on the Heria Gimba, who was convicted under Section 447, I.P. Code and Section 26(h) of the Indian Forest Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 3/- in default S.I. for two days and to pay a fine of Rs. 2/- in default S.I. for one day respectively.2. The learned Government Pleader for the State contends that the sen tences are inadequate and should be enhanced. The Learned Counsel for the opponent, however, contends that the convictions are erroneous and should be set aside.As regards the conviction under Section 26(h) of the Indian Forest Act the case of the prosecution was that on 3-9-59 the accused illegally entered into the land belonging to Forest Department with an intention of cultivating and tilling the land unauthorisedly and also cultivated the same land. It was not the prosecution case that the land was reserved forest land. The learned Government Pleader concedes th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »