Gujarat Court January 1961 Judgments
Hemaji Tarsanji and anr. Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-1961
Reported in: (1961)2GLR240
V.B. Raju, J.1. In this Criminal revision application, it is urged that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code, is erroneous and should be set aside. Accused Nos. 2 and 3, who were the servants of accused No. 1, were convicted under Sections 453 and 341, Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case was that on 21-5-59, the complainant Rambhai closed his room No. 21 and went to his son, who was at the College. In his absence, according to the prosecution, the accused broke open the lock of the room and took possession of it, and when the complainant returned, he saw that the lock of his room had been broken open and accused Nos. 2 and 3 were removing household goods from the room and throwing them outside in verandah. When the complainant asked them why they were throwing the goods, the complainant was threatened with violence. He filed a complaint and the prosecution ended in the conviction of accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Nanalal Maneklal Vs. Patel Chhotabhai Desaibhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-1961
Reported in: (1961)2GLR601
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The appellant filed Regular Civil Suit No. 400 of 1947 against the respondent and in that suit a consent decree was passed on 28th July 1948 whereby the respondent was ordered to pay certain amount to the appellant. The appellant thereafter filed a Darkhast No. 262 of 1948-49 for execution of the decree. In the meanwhile the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to by me as the Act) was made applicable and the respondent therefore applied on 5th November 1949 for transfer of the Darkhast under Section 19(1) of the Act on the ground that he was a debtor within the meaning of the Act and that the total amount of debts due from him did not exceed Rs. 15.000/-. The Darkhast was thereupon transferred to the B.A.D.R. Court under Section 19(1) and was treated as an application made under Section 4. The application thereafter came up for hearing before the B.A.D.R. Court on 18th July 1952 when the appellant remained absent. Since the appellant wa...
Tag this Judgment!Vora Fidaali BadruddIn Mithibarwala Vs. the State of Bombay (Now Gujar ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Guj151; (1961)2GLR343
Bhagwati, J.1. This Second Appeal raises a question of considerable importance regarding proprietary rights in lands granted by Rulers of Indian States before the merger of those States with the Dominion of India and the effect of the merger on such proprietary rights. Several arguments have been addressed to us relating to different aspects of this question and the arguments have been both able and ingenious. In order to understand and appreciate these arguments, it is necessary to set out the facts giving rise to this appeal. The facts are not many and may be briefly stated as follows:2. Prior to 15th August 1947, the Sant State was an independent native State under the paramountcy of the British Crown. On 15th August 1947, India obtained independence and became a Dominion by reason of the Indian Independence Act, 1947. At the same time, the sovereignty of the British Crown over the Indian States lapsed by reason of Section 7 of that Act and as a result thereof, the Sant State became...
Tag this Judgment!Harshadrai Raghanathji Desai Vs. Paragji Hirabhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-1961
Reported in: (1961)2GLR505
S.T. Raju, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The only contention urged by the petitioner is that there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record in the order of the RevenueTribunal confirming the decision of the Tenancy Mamlatdar in Tenancy Case No. 244/53-54 and the order in appeal dismissing the appeal from the decision of the Tenancy Mamlatdar. The Revenue Tribunal held that the Tenancy Mamlatdar was right in his decision that opponent No. 1 was a tenant of the petitioner in respect of the land S. No. 228 in village Kabilpore Taluka Navsari consisting of a bungalow 150 mango trees 100 coconut trees and a well. There was a registered agreement between the parties dated 21-6-1949 and after considering the terms of this agreement and drawing the presumption under Section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 the Tenancy Mamlatdar held that the relationship between the parties was one of landlord and tenant. This de...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bombay (Now the Gujarat State) Vs. Raojibhai Motibhai Pat ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-23-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Guj130; (1961)GLR331
Mehta, J.1. This is an appeal by the former State of Bombay against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedabad, declaring an order of dismissal passed against the plaintiff to be illegal, ultra vires and void and that the plaintiff continues to be in the service of the State.2. The plaintiff joined the Excise Department of the former Bombay State as a Sub-Inspector in 1926. At the relevant time in December 1948, the plaintiff was an Assistant Inspector of Excise, Eastern Division, Ahmedabad. The allegation of the State against the plaintiff was that one Chhotu Raiji had given information to the effect that Police Patel Narsibhai Ranchhodbbai of Maroli village and another Police Patel Fakirbhai Khushalbhai of village Vasai, both villages being within the plaintiff's charge, were dealing in illicit liquor to one Excise Sub-Inspector Mr. P. Y. Pradhan, who was working out the case. In the meanwhile this information was passed on to the plai...
Tag this Judgment!Hariprasad Jayantilal and Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ahmedabad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-1961
Reported in: (1961)GLR487; [1962]45ITR294(Guj)
Desai, C.J.1. This petition raises an interesting question of law relating to the construction of section 35(10) of the Income-tax Act, and arises out of certain orders under the provisions made by the first respondent, the Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle, B, Ahmedabad. 2. The facts may be briefly stated. The petitioner is a limited liability company, which was taken in voluntary liquidation in 1957. The assessment years with which we are concerned on this petition are 1948-49 to 1953-54, the corresponding previous years being calendar years 1947 to 1952. The petitioner company was assessed for the assessment years 1948-49 to 1953-54 and allowed a rebate of one anna per rupee under clause (1) of the proviso to paragraph B of Part I of the Schedules to the Finance Acts of 1948 to 1953 respectively on the undistributed profits of those years. It will be convenient to set out here the income finally determined by the Income-tax Officer in respect of those years, the undis...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Madhubharti and Chelabhathi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-13-1961
Reported in: 1961CriLJ227; (1961)2GLR218
ORDERP.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This reference has been made by the learned Sessions Judge, Banaskantha, for quashing an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palanpur, committing the accused to stand his trial before the Sessions Court for the offences under Sections 369, 379 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts giving rise to this reference may be shortly stated as follows.2. The accused is admittedly fifteen years old and is a child within the meaning of the Bombay Children Act, 1948, which applies to the Banaskantha District. The accused was charged with having committed offences under Sections 369, 379 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palampur. It appears that while the learned Magistrate was trying the case against the accused under the provisions of the Act, an application was submitted by the Police Prosecutor drawing the attention of the Judicial Magistrate to a recent decision of the High Court of Mysore in the case of ...
Tag this Judgment!Vakhatsinhji Vajesinhji Vaqhela Vs. State of Bombay (Now Gujarat) and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-12-1961
Reported in: (1961)2GLR285
A.R. Bakshl, J.1. These are 12 petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution directed against the decision of the Revenue Tribunal deciding the claims of the petitioners made by them under the provisions of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949. The Revenue Tribunal has by a common judgment disposed of all the appeals filed by the petitioners against the awards made by the Special Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad. and has dealt with the points of general nature common to those appeals, and dealt with each appeal separately in the same judgment. The learned advocates appearing before us in these petitions have argued these matters on the same lines, and, therefore, we propose to dispose of the present petitions by a common judgment.2. The petitioners are the ex-Talukdars of certain villages in the district of Ahmedabad, and their tenures were abolished by the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949. Section 3 of the said Act provides that the Taluqdari tenure shall wherever i...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Qurudayal Sharma Vs. Hansraj Jiwandas and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-11-1961
Reported in: (1961)2GLR572
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondents as plaintiffs against the appellant as defendant in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rajkot for ejecting the appellant from certain premises belonging to the respondents and for recovering arrears of rent in respect of the premises. The respondents are trustees of a trust called the Rajkot Lohana Boarding House and as such trustees the respondents own various immovable properties one of which is known as Sitaram Blocks. This immovable property known as Sitaram Blocks was constructed sometime in 1945 and was immediately after construction let out to the tenants. The appellant has been a tenant of Rooms Nos. 13 and 14 on the first floor and Shops Nos. 2 5 and 6 on the ground floor of this immovable property since about 1945-1946. At the time when this immovable property was constructed the number of students who required accommodation in the boarding house of the trust was small and this immova...
Tag this Judgment!C.N. Bros. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-10-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Guj144; (1961)GLR227(GJ)
Desai, C.J.1. In this petition entitled as one under Section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act and also tinder Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought a direction from this Court under Section 66 (2) of the Income Tax Act to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a Statement of the case and to raise and refer to this Court certain specified questions, of law. In the alternative, he has sought the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a Statement of the Case and to raise and refer to this Court certain specified questions of law.2. The facts are these: The petitioner, who carries on business of purchasing and selling medicines as a retailer was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1956-57, accounting period being Samvat Year 2011'. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the Income-tax Officer rejected the books of account of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›