Gujarat Court July 1960 Judgments
Dinkerray Ragunath Mehta Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Guj30; 1960CriLJ1449
ORDER(1) This is an application for transfer of Special Case No. 1 of 1960 from file of the Special Judge having that case to the file of Special Judge, Rajkot.(2) Under S. 526(1) (e) Cr. P. C., the High Court may, for the reasons stated in that section, order (1) that any offence be inquired into or tried by any Court not empowered under Ss. 177 to 184 (both inclusive), but in other respects competent to inquire into or try such offence; (2) that any particular case or appeal or class of cases or appeals, be transferred from a Criminal Court subordinate to its authority to any other such Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction: (3) that any particular case or appeal be transferred to and tried before itself; or (4) that an accused person be committed for trial to itself or to a Court of Session. Where the order is passed under clause (i) of sub-section (e) or clause (ii) of sub-section (e) of S. 526 (1), Cr. P. C. a case can be transferred to a Court which has jurisdiction to...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Memon Gafar Tarmohmed
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-29-1960
Reported in: (1960)1GLR108
V.B. Raju, J.1. In Criminal Case No. 445 of 1959 on a complaint filed by the Gondal Municipality the applicant was convicted under Section 122(1) of the Bombay District Municipal Act; 1/901 for not having removed certain goods. In the order dated 15-6-1959 the learned Magistrate observed: The accused liable to pay a fine of Rs. 2/per dient2. On an application made by the Municipality the First Class Magistrate Gondal passed an order on 20-10-1959 holding that it was proved by the report of the Chief Officer Gondal' Municipality that the accused had not removed the goods upto 1-10-1959. He therefore ordered that warrant to recover the fine of Rs. 100/- for total 86 days at the rate of Rs. 2/per day for 86 days between 24-6-59 and 28-9-1959.3. In revision it is contended that this order passed by the learned Magistrate is improper and? should be set aside.4. It is clear Jhat the order is improper. Under Section 122(1) of the Bombay District Municipal Act when an offence is committed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Chinubhai Jivanlal Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-29-1960
Reported in: (1960)1GLR134
S.T. Desai, C.J.1. This petition raise a question of considerable importance. Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act rules that on the first day of April 1957 known as the tillers day every tenant shall subject to certain conditions and provisions of the Act be deemed to have purchased from his landlord free of all encumbrances the land held by him as tenant. The effect of that section is that as from the tillers day tenants are deemed to have purchased and become owners of land of which they were tenants. Section 32H relates to the purchase price and its maxima. Clause (ii)(a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 32H lays down that in the case of tenants other than permanent tenants the purchase price is to be the aggregate of such amount as the Tribunal may determine not being less than 20 times and not more than 200 times the assessment. That sub-section it will be noticed fixes a minima and maxima as to the quantum of the purchase price to be paid by the tenant to the...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Municipality Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Guj40; (1960)GLR82(GJ)
Desai, C.J.(1) The question of considerable importance and consequence that has to be decided by this Full Bench relates to the binding nature of the precedents of the Bombay High Court on this High Court. The question is whether the Gujarat High Court is bound by the decisions of the Bombay High Court delivered before 1-5-1960. The petition which gave rise to it came up for consideration before my brother Miabhoy and myself when in the course of the arguments at the bar the learned Advocate General relied on a decision of the High Court of Bombay. Learned counsel on the other side argued that this Court was not bound by a decision of the High Court of Bombay. Our attention was drawn to a decision of the Andhra High Court, Subbarayudu v. State (S) AIR 1955 Andhra 87 decided by a Full Bench of that High Court. It was there held that the binding nature of the precedents of one Court on another depended upon the fact whether such Courts are Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction; and the Andh...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanushanker Ambalal Joshi Vs. Laxman Kala and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Guj5; (1960)GLR169(GJ)
Desai, C.J. 1. This petition came up for hearing before my brother Miabhoy and myself when Mr. Nanavaty, learned advocate for the petitioner, relied on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Waman Ganesh Joshi v. Ganu Guna Khapre, 61 Bom LR 1267, insupport of the argument that the Revenue Tribunal was in error in interpreting Section 31A(d) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. It was also argued before us that decisions of the Bombay High Court are binding on this Court Then question had by that time been referred to a Bench of this Court. The Full Bench has now pressed the view that a decision of the Bombay Court given prior to the 1st May 1960, is on this High Court. Therefore, speaking generally, that decision of a Division Bench would be followed by a Division Bench of this Court. At that time, we had found it difficult to agree with the view expressed in the case of Waman Ganesh 61 Bom LR 1267 and the petition is now before us for disposal.2. The facts are these...
Tag this Judgment!Dahyalal Jethalal Vs. Patel Manilal Jiwanbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-1960
Reported in: (1960)1GLR186
R.B. Mehta, J.1. This is a second appeal from the appellate judgment of the learned Second Extra Assistant Judge Ahmedabad who in turn confirmed the order and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division Modasa. The appellant here is original plaintiff and the respondent is the original defendant. The plaintiffs suit was on a Khata for an amount of Rs. 1,200/- inclusive of interest. There were two substantial defenses. One was that the debt was extinguished under the provisions of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act and the second was that the Khata was taken by undue influence. On the point of undue influence the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that there was no undue influence but on the point whether the debt was extinguished under the B.A.D.R. Act the learned trial Judge held that the debt in question was so extinguished. On appeal the learned Assistant Judge confirmed the order of the Trial Judge also coming to the conclusion that the debt was extingu...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Karson Zaver
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-27-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Guj34; 1960CriLJ1582; (1960)GLR119
Raju, J.(1) This is an appeal by the State of Guajrat against the acquittal by the learned Sessions Judge of Surat, who set aside the conviction and sentence passed upon the Karsan Zaver under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surat, convicted the respondent under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act, for having sold adulterated milk to the complainant Food Inspector D. K. Desai of Surat, on 4-8-1958. The respondent was going with 15 seers of milk for sale. The complainant Food Inspector, who was accompanied by two Panchas, asked the respondent about the quality of milk and he was told that it was buffalo's milk. He purchased 1 1/2 seers of milk from the respondent and after following the procedure laid down under the Act, he took samples of milk an sent one sample to the Public Analyst. According to the prosecution the result...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Kolis Hira Bhaga and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-26-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Guj8; 1961CriLJ54a
Raju, J.* * * * 1. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the four accused of the charges under Section 302 I. P. Code but convicted all of them under Section 324, I. P. Code, and sentenced each of them to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. In regard to the acquittal of all the four accused under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. Code, the State has filed an appeal from acquittal.* * * * *We hold that there are compelling reasons to set aside the order or acquittal, that the guilt of accused No. 1 under Section 302, I. P. Code, and of accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 324, I. P. Code, is proved beyond the possibility of any reasonable doubt, and that the learned Sessions Judge should not have acquitted accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3.* * *2. The learned Sessions Judge held that Bhagwan was murdered on 14-1-59 at 10-30 a. m. near the Chora, that it was accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, who had caused injuries to Bhagwan near the Chora, that at that time accused No. 1 was armed with a...
Tag this Judgment!Kasturbhai Lalbhai and ors. Vs. Gujarat University, Ahmedabad and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-26-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Guj14; (1960)GLR67
Desai, C.J.(1) This is a rule taken out at the instance of the petitioners, members of the Senate of the Gujarat University, against the University, the first respondent before us, and the Vice Chancellor of the University, who is the second respondent before us. The petition arises out of a resolution sought to be brought before the Senate by a number of requisitionists and which resolution was not allowed to be debated in wake of a point of order raised by one of the members of the Senate. The relief which the petitioners seek from this Court in this petition is as under:'......... will be pleased to issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order requiring the respondents to treat the ruling of the Second Respondent as void and ineffective and direction the Respondents to continue his requisitioned meeting of the Senate held on 28-6-1960 and further directing them to put the resolution contained in item No. 2 of the agenda of the said m...
Tag this Judgment!Dharamdas Shyamlal Vs. the District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-26-1960
Reported in: 1960CriLJ1588
Shelat, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 491 of the Cr.PC for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for setting at liberty the petitioner who has been detained in the Sabarmati Jail at Ahmedabad since 4-3-1960 under an order dated 4-3-1960 passed by the District Magistrate Ahmedabad, Under Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, being Act IV of 1830. The grounds upon which order was issued were furnished to the detention the same day. On the 12th of Match i960, the then Government of Bombay approved the said order as required under Clause (3) of Section 3 of the said Act. The said order together with a representation made by the detenu were sent to the Advisory Board and after a personal hearing was given to the detenu, the Board gave its approval to the order. On the 22nd of April 1960, the State Government passed an order under Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act confirming the order and ordering to continue the d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »