Gujarat Court August 1960 Judgments
Indian Extractions (Private) Ltd. Vs. Vyas (A.V.) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Guj22; (1960)GLR242; (1962)IILLJ194Guj
Desai, C.J. 1. This petition raises a question of some importance affecting the construction of S. 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to be referred to by us hereinafter as 'the Act.' The matter has been argued before us by Mr. S. D. Parekh with ability and discernment and he has made a valiant attempt to persuade us to hold that a decision of the Bombay High Court on the identical question should not be regarded by us as binding on this Court and he has taken his stand on the ground that that decision to which we shall presently turn was delivered per incuriam. 2. The facts may be succinctly stated. The petitioners are a limited company which owns a factory at Jamnagar. Respondent 2 was in the employment of the petitioner-company and he was chargesheeted by the company on 14 September, 1959, and a departmental inquiry was held against him. After the inquiry the employer dismissed respondent 2 from employment. At that time conciliation proceedings were pending before responden...
Tag this Judgment!Dholia Ravji (Accused No. 1) Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-29-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ813; (1960)GLR151
Raju, J.1. Appellant who was accused No. 1 at the Sessions trial has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Baroda under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, for having caused the death of one Vajiria Debra and under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, for having voluntarily caused grievous hurt to one Bai Pidi, wife of Jajiria Debra. x x x x x In his examination at the Sessions trial, the appellant made the following statement:Vajiria was calling my wife a 'Dakan' saying that his daughter had died. While I was going towards the Kotardi, Vajiria came from behind and he gave a blow with a 'Dinga' on my head. Vajiria was followed by his wife. I was thrown down by Vajiria and' his wife. Bai Pidi had caught hold of my testicles and Vajiria had caught hold of my hair and then I was beaten. Dharia was lying nearby which I took and gave blows to save my life. I beat them both, I then went to the Police Patel.He, therefore, admitted of having caused the injuries by 'Dharia' to both Vajiria and...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Isap Haji Mahomed Vs. the State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-22-1960
Reported in: (1961)2GLR31
J.M. Shelat J.1. These three Revision Applications involve a common question of law arising under the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act of 1939.2. The accused in Rev. Application No. 5/ of 1960 is a trader, who carried on business at Broach in wheat and jowar during the years 1957-58 and 1958-59. In Rev. Applications Nos. 79 and 80 of 1960 the two accused are brothers and were at the material time dealing in the market area at Balasinor in wheat, rice and bajri. The question that has been raised in these three applications is whether the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939, applies to a trader, who imports agricultural produce from outside the market area and sells it within that market area, or the market constituted therein. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, II Court, Broach, convicted the accused in Criminal Rev. Application No. 57 of 1960 under Rules 65(1) and 65(7) framed under the Act, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 15/-. Similarly in the other...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad Vs. Patel Prabhudas Dha ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-18-1960
Reported in: (1960)1GLR94
J.M. Shelat, J.1. This appeal raises a point of construction of Section 260 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949.2 The plaintiff filed a suit against the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad for a declaration that the notice issued by the Corporation dated the 30th April 1952 under Section 260 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949 was vague illegal and ultra vires and for an injunction restraining a shed and a pan-galla constructed by the plaintiff and in respect of which the notice was issued.3. The plaintiff has been running a hotel in Survey No. 163 in Saraspur Ward Ahmedabad for the last several years. It was the case of the plaintiff that he had made no additions or alterations in his shop and yet the State and the City Improvement Officer of the Corporation sent him the said notice under Section 260 to the effect that he had made constructions contrary to buildings byelaws 5-A and 23. It was also his case that he had constructed the shop prior...
Tag this Judgment!Rukmanibai W/O. Kasturdas Dharamdas Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-1960
Reported in: (1960)1GLR179
J.M. Shelat, J.1. His Lordship after narrating the facts proceeded. Mr. Shah who appears for the plaintiff has challenged the order of dismissal of the plaintiff's suit by the Trial Court and the learned Assistant Judge. His first contention was that the finding by the Courts below that the suit was barred both under Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act and under Section 37(3) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code was erroneous and was not justified in law. He submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff was in fact in time as it was filed on the 22nd of June 1953 i.e. within one year from the 28th April 1952 that being the date of the order of dismissal of the plaintiffs appeal by the Bombay Revenue Tribunal which is the final appellate authority That contention in my view cannot be sustained.2. The suit in substance was to set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar and subsequently confirmed by the superior revenue authorities. Though in the plaint it was said that the suit...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Mohanlal Narandas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-12-1960
Reported in: (1960)1GLR156
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad, recommending that the conviction of one Mohanlal Narandas who will be hereinafter referred to as the petitioner under Section 26 of the Bombay Rent Act for not having given a receipt when he was given a cheque by his tenant for Rs. 28-63 np. being rent for the month from 1-7-59 to 31-7-59. The cheque was not encashed by the landlord who returned it. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Second Court Ahmedabad was of the view that the landlord should not have retuned the cheque but should have given a receipt. He therefore convicted the petitioner under Section 26(2) of the Bombay Rent Act and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 10/- in default seven days' simple imprisonment. The learned Sessions Judge is of the view that this conviction is erroneous because no money is received until a cheque is actually cashed or until the amount of the cheque is credited in the bank account of the landlord. His view is ...
Tag this Judgment!Oswal Danji Tejsi and ors. Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Guj16; 1961CriLJ251; (1960)GLR145
Miabhoy, J. 1. The appellants, who were the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the trial Court have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Kutch, for the offences under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. The charge against the three appellants was one under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. The prosecution case was that, on or about 21-9-1959 at about 3-30 a.m. in the village Vekara, Taluka Rahpar, District Kutch, in furtherance of their common intention, the accused committed the murder of one Charan Rana Mulu. The deceased Rana was a resident of the village Vekara. His brothers Desar and Samat also resided in the same village. The three accused are brothers. The prosecution case is that they resided at the village Somani-Wandh, which is about half a mile from the village Vekara. On the night of 21-9-59, some crops were standing in the field of the three accused. The prosecu...
Tag this Judgment!Mangalbhai Fateshingh Chauhan Vs. Bai Naniba
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-08-1960
Reported in: (1960)1GLR163
S.T. Desai, C.J.1. One question which arises for our determination on this petition is as to the interpretation of Section 76A of the Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and the scope and ambit of the powers of the Collector when he decides to act suo motu under that section and to call for the record of any inquiry or proceeding of any Mamlatdar for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed by the Mamlatdar. Another question relates to limitation in the context of the exercise of the power of review conferred by Section 76A on the Collector.2. Opponent No. 1 to the present petition is the owner of survey No. 82 admeasuring 2 acres and 24 gunthas and situated in village Partappura in Kaira District. The petitioner before us is the tenant of that land. Opponent No. 1 filed a tenancy application in respect of this land in the Court of the Tenancy Mahalkari on 7th May 1956 and the relief sought was recovery of possession of the land on the ground...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Kachara Sada
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-05-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Guj20; 1961CriLJ255; (1960)GLR103
Raju, J.1. This Judgment will dispose of Confirmation case No. 1 of 1960 and Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 1960 arising out of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge at Mehsana, convicting the appellant Kachara Sada Dhed-Harijan under Section 302, I. P. Code, for having murdered Bai Mangu aged 17 years, wife of one Ishwar and under Sections 394 and 397 I. P. Code, for having robbed her of her ornaments and for having used a deadly weapon while committing robbery.2-9. It is contended that Keshavlal is the only eye-witness, who, according to the prosecution,had seen the appellant at the scene of offence and that when the prosecution case depends on the evidence of only one eye-witness, his evidence requires to be corroborated, and for this purpose the learned counsel for the appellant relies on a ruling reported in (S) AIR 1956 SC 379, Vemireddy Satyanarayan Reddy v. State of Hyderabad.10-12. This case is distinguishable from the present case, because in that case a person who had seen ...
Tag this Judgment!ismail Noor Mohammed Vs. Khoja Habibhai Zaverbhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-05-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Guj48; 1960CriLJ1593; (1960)GLR127
ORDER(1) These revision applications are in respect of an acquittal of one Khoja Habibhai Zavebhai, which was charged under S. 408, I. P. C. The learned judicial Magistrate, First Class, Radhanpur acquitted him in Criminal Case No. 49 of 1949, and the Revision application was filed before the Bombay High Court which was No. 2013 of 1959. If that application, it was ordered by the High Court of Bombay that a revision application should befouled before the Sessions Judge and the matter was sent back. A revision application had accordingly been filed before the Sessions Judge, who has, however, dismiss it. The complainant has therefore made another application before the Gujarat High Court which is No. 254 of 1960.(2) In both these petitions the prayer is that the acquittal of opponent no. 1 under S. 498, I. P. C., should be set aside an he should be convicted under S. 408, I. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge agreed with the finding of the trying Magistrate that the accused was a partner ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »