Gujarat Court February 1961 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.
Mohanlal Chhaganlal Mithaiwala Vs. Vipanchandra R. Gandhi and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj44; (1961)GLR735
Shelat, J. 1. The principal ground urged by Mr. Shall on behalf of the petitioner was that the proviso to Section 13(5) of the Act was ultra vires inasmuch as that proviso violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution; that the Act did not lay down or indicate any standard for the guidance of the Director or the Public Analyst and conferred absolute, naked and arbitrary powers upon these officers; that the presumption arising out of the certificate issued by the Director was not a conclusive presumption but a rebuttable one and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to challenge the facts stated therein by means of cross-examination or by leading evidence of some other expert.2. Section 13 of the Act provides first for the report of a Public Analyst in respect of the result of the analysis of an article of food submitted to him by a Food Inspector for analysis. Sub-section (2) provides that after the institution of a prosecution, the accus...
Chandulal Mohanlal Vs. State of Bombay and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Guj184; (1961)GLR422; (1961)0GLR514
Desai, C.J. 1. This petition relates to a concern employing five workmen and the matter by itself would seem to be unimportant, but the question involved, -- one under the Minimum Wages Act--affects a number of merchants similarly situated and the petitioner has presented this petition as a test case. The petitioner is a merchant carrying on business in Ahmeclabad in cotton waste and yarn-He has rented a go down in the compound of a ginning and pressing factory and in that compound he gets the work of cleaning cotton done by engaging about five employees. He purchases waste from textile mills and the waste is sorted out in his go down for impurities like 'kitti', dirt, oil, etc. The employees clear the waste of impurities and also sort out different kinds of waste-A number of merchants, it appears, any on similar business, but it is not clear whether they also have rented go downs in the compound of other ginning and pressing factories, as done by the petitioner. The Modus Operandi fol...
Deva Harbham Landha Vs. Mer Malde Raja
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj64; (1962)0GLR129
ORDERP.N. Bhagwati, J. 1. This matter has been placed before me under Rule 6 (11) of Chapter V of the High Court Rules for revision of an order passed by the learned Registrar On 27th January 1961. The petitioner filed an application for adjustment of his debts under the provisions of the Saurashtra Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act. The trial Court decided the preliminary issue in favour of the petitioner and held that the petitioner was a debtor within the meaning of the Act. The respondent who is a creditor filed an appeal against the decision of the Court. The learned Assistant Judge who heard the appeal came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a debtor within the meaning of the Act and he accordingly allowed the appeal and dismissed the application made by the petitioner for adjustment of his debts under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner thereupon filed the present Revision Application before this Court. 2. The appeal of the respondent was decided by the learned A...
Suleman Usman Memon Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-1961
Reported in: 1961CriLJ78
ORDERBhagwati, J.1. The short and interesting question' which arises in this Criminal Revision Application is as regards the weight to be attached to a report of a Chemical Examiner when the report is tender ed as evidence under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without summoning and examining the Chemical Examiner as to the subject-matter of the report. The accused was tried by the Jadicial Magistrate, First Class, Broach for the offence of consuming liquor tinder Section 66(1)(b) oft the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 hereinafter referred to by me as the Act. The charge against-the accused was that on 16th December, 1959 at about 5-45 P.M., he was found on a public road having consumed liquor in contravention of the provisions of the Act. A sample of the blood of1 the accused was taken by the police and submitted to the Chemical Examiner to the Government for determining the concentration of alcohol in the-blood. Though the sample of the blood was taken on 16th' December, 1...
Chandulal Dahyabhai Vs. the State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-1961
Reported in: (1961)2GLR514
R.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner has come in revision against the order of the learned Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, by which a conviction and a fine of Rs. 100/- inflicted on him by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Fourth Court, Ahmedabad, was confirmed for contravention of the provisions of Section 35 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, in that he failed to invest the trust funds lying with him in authorized investments. The actual conviction is under the provisions of Section 66 of the said Act.2. The facts leading to this offence are that the petitioner is the sole trustee of the Lunsawada Moti-pole Panch-Parabadi Trust, which is registered under the said Act. The object of the Trust is to feed birds with food-grains in the said Motipole. It appears that this Trust is about 100 years old and there is no written instrument of Trust. It was alleged that in S.Y. 2013 (about 1957), a sum of Rs. 5901-45 nP. was the cash balance of this Trust and it was inves...
Motisinh Gambhirsinh Vs. the State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Guj117; 1961CriLJ76; (1961)2GLR481
V.B. Raju, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the leaned Additional Sessions Judge, Baroda, in Sessions Case No. 26 of 1960, convicting the appellant under Section 467, I. P. Code, and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case was that the appellant, who was a Talati in charge of Manjrol Saja in Sinor Taluka, was entrusted with certain amount of money in 1956 for distribution to cotton growers within his range of three villages. One of these persons was one Hirabhai Manorbhai, and the amount payable to him was Rs. 0-10-0. It is the prosecution case that without paying the amount of Rs. 0-10-0 to Himbhai Manorbhai the appellant prepared a false document purporting to be a receipt by Hirabhai Manorbhai for Rs. 0-10-0 and sent it to the Taluka Office. It was also the case of the prosecution that Hirabhai Manorbhai had died in 1950. It was also the prosecution case that the receipt was attested by the appellant in column 5. He was therefor...
Mochi Motilal Jagjivandas Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-1961
Reported in: 1961CriLJ474; (1961)GLR436
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge, Mehsana, arising out of an application (Ex. 15) made by the original complainant in a case before the J.M.F.C. Kadi, under Sections 504 and 506(1), Indian Penal Code, praying that two witnesses not named in the original complaint should be summoned and examined as witnesses for the complainant in place of two persons named in the original complaint. This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate, who thought that as the complainant had mentioned the names of only two witnesses in his complaint as having been present at the time of the alleged offence, he should not be allowed to examine two different persons not named in the original complaint as eye-witnesses. On this ground, he dismissed the application. The learned Sessions Judge, however, feels that the Magistrate erred in doing so. The learned Sessions Judge is of the view that witnesses not named in the original complaint can be summoned and examined in the ...
State Vs. Nageshwar Someshwar and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-1961
Reported in: (1961)2GLR430
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional District Magistrate. Baroda, under Section 435, Cr. P.C., recommending that the order passed under Section 145, Cr. P.C. by the 2nd Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baroda, in Criminal Case No. 8 of 1960, holding that one Chatur Shanker was in actual possession of 0-38 Gunthas of land of Survey No. 1106/3 of Padra village and forbiding Nageshwar Someshwar from disturbing that possession until evicted by due course of law, be set aside in view of the fact that in a subsequent case, namely Criminal Case No. 174 of 1960, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Padra, decided on 3-10-60 that Chatur Shanker had committed criminal trespass on the field bearing Survey No. 1106/3, which was in the actual possession of Bai Shantaben, the wife of Nageshwar Someshwar. The learned Additional District Magistrate thinks that in view of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Padra, on 3-10-60, the order passed by the Second Sub-Division...
Chunilal Chhaganlal and ors. Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Guj127; 1961CriLJ85; (1961)0GLR431
V.B. Raju, J.1. This revision application arises out of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Nadia, who confirmed in appeal the convictions of the seven applicants under Section 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act and the sentences passed on them of fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default imprisonment for one month.2. In revision, the learned counsel for the applicants has argued three points: (1) That the conviction under Section 5 of the Gambling Act is not justified when the P. S. I. who made the search under Section 6 of the Gambling Act is contradicted by both the Panchas, who say that they were not present in the room at the time when it was searched, although according to the P. S. I. the search was made in the presence of the Panchas; (2) that such a conviction is not justified when the P. S. I. is contradicted by the head constable, who accompanied him, and who has deposed that he does not remember whether the particular room, in which, according to the prosecution, i...
Kalyan Industries Ltd. Vs. the State of Bombay (Now Gujarat)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-1961
Reported in: (1962)3GLR36
V.B. Raju, J.1. This if a second appeal by the original plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the Civil Judge Senior Division Godhra. In first appeal the District Judge of Panch Mahals at Godhra confirmed the decree dismissing the suit.2. The facts of tips litigation can be briefly stated as follows: Under the powers delegated to it under Section 4 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act 1946 (XXIV of 1946) which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act the Govt. of Bombay issued an order on 16-1-1953 called 'The Bombay Government Oilcakes (Procurement) Order 1953 which will hereinafter be referred to as the Procurement Order. Section 3 of this Order provided that every mill shall with effect from Monday the 19th January 1953 reserve 50 per cent of the production of groundnut oilcakes produced in his mill every week and deliver to the Government or any person authorised by it in this behalf on presentation of a release order such of the quantities from out of the produc...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »