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.
Nagindas Keshavlal Vs. the State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-22-1961
Reported in: (1961)2GLR610
V.B. Raju, J.1. The applicant Nagindas Keshavlal was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Godhra, under Section 409, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months, and this conviction was confirmed but the sentence was reduced in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Panchmahals at Godhra in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1960.2. The charge against the applicant was that he was Naka Karkun on duty at Satpul Octroi Naka from 9 P.M. to 5 A.M. On the night of 31-8-1958 and 1-9-1958, that at 1 A.M. he received Rs. 9-6-0 as octroi duty from one Natharmal in respect of 75 maunds of bananas imported from Baroda that receipt (Ex.6) for this amount was given; that the applicant was relieved by Nakedar Sadatali and that instead of this amount of Rs. 9-6-0 received by the applicant he paid Rs. 4-6-0 to Nakedar Sadatali and he misappropriated the balanc...
Shah Mohanlal Manilal Vs. Firm Running in the Name and Style of Dhirub ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-21-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj56; (1961)0GLR629
P.N. Bhagwati, J. 1. This Second Appeal raises a short question of law regarding the right of a buyer to reject goods taken delivery of by him from the seller and supplied by him to his sub-purchasers before he has had a reasonable opportunity of examining the goods for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract The fads which are admitted or found to have been proved by the first appellate Court may be briefly stated as follows. On or about 24th March 1952, a contract was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant whereby the plaintiffs agreed to sell to the defendant one wagon load of pure 'dundi' coal at the rate of Rs. 2-1-3 per deshi maund. The plaintiffs despatched to the defendant under the contract 397 bags containing 345 Bengali maunds of coal on 1st May 1952. The plaintiffs thereafter delivered the railway receipt in respect of the consignment to the defendant on 3rd May 1952 against payment of a cheque for Rs. l,000/- and Rs. 100/...
State Vs. Bai Diwaliben Nagindas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-1961
Reported in: (1961)2GLR314
R.B. Mehta, J.1. This is a reference made by the Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, recommending quashing of an order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Municipality), by which the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty under Section 123(7) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, and sentenced her to pay a fine of Rs. 10/-, in default to suffer S.I. for a week.2. The facts of this case briefly are that the accused Bai Diwali Nagindas had applied to the local Municipality for permission to construct a flush latrine on 27th August 1958 in her property bearing No. 4/2773, in Ward No. 4, situated at Begumpura, Vania Sheri, in the city of Surat. She was granted permission by the Municipality to construct the same according to the plan submitted by her. The case of the Municipality against the accused is that she constructed a flush latrine not in the survey number in regard to which the permission was granted but in a dif...
Apabhai Hemabhai Patel and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj218; 1963CriLJ119; (1962)GLR14
Shelat, J. * * * * *5. The question arising in this application is whether the learned Sessions Judge had Jurisdiction under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the Magistrate to commit the three applicants to the Court of Session on a charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 Of the Penal Code.6. Section 437 inter alia provides that when, on examining the record of any case under Section 435 or otherwise, the Sessions Judge considers that such case is triable exclusively by the Court of Session and that an accused person has been Improperly discharged by the inferior Court, the Sessions Judge may cause him to be arrested, and may thereupon instead of directing a fresh inquiry, order him to be committed for trial upon the matter of which he has been, in the opinion of the Sessions Judge improperly discharged. There are two provisos to Section 437, but we do not propose to cite them here as they are not relevant for the purposes of this inquiry.7. Mr. Nanavatty a...
Sukhlal Parshottam Vs. Surendranagar Joint Municipality
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-10-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj25; (1961)0GLR518
Desai, C.J. 1. This is a Reference under Section 113 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned District Judge, Jhalawad Division, has referred to us the question about the constitutional validity of Section 90, Sub-section (5) of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, as adapted. The learned District Judge was of the opinion that Section 90, Sub-section (5) of that Act was void inasmuch as it violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(l)(f) of the Constitution. He found that the determination of that question was necessary for the disposal of the appeal that was pending before him and that the said sub-section had not been declared invalid or inoperative by any High Court or the Supreme Court so far.2. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 207 of 1957, which was being heard by the learned District Judge, was the owner of three shops situate at Surendranagar which were abutting on the northern Side of a street. That street was declared by the Surendranagar Joint Municipali...
The State Vs. Jethalal Ghelabhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-10-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj208; [1962(4)FLR498]; (1961)GLR705; (1964)0GLR470; (1962)IILLJ342Guj
1-6. x x x x x x 7. The question that falls for determination is whether that cover, (of spur gear wheel --Ed.) having been removed without the knowledge or consent or connivance of the respondent(the manager of the Oil Mills--Ed.) he could still be held guilty of breach of Section 21(1)(iv)(c) read with Section 92 of the Art (Factories Act --Ed.). As we have said, the learned Magistrate found that he was not, and that finding has been strenuously challenged by the learned Government Pleader.8. The learned Government pleader contended that (1) under Section 21(1)(iv)(c) of the Act, the liability of the occupier or, the manager of a factory was absolute; and (2) that if Section 21(1)(iv)(c) were to be read with Section 101 of the Act, it would be clear that unless the occupier or manager of a factory, when charged with an offence punishable under this Act, files a complaint to have any other person whom he charges as the actual offender, brought before the court at the time appointed fo...
Shah Hiralal Virchand and anr. Vs. Patel Vithalbhai Vaghjibhai and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-09-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Guj189; (1961)GLR548
Miabhoy, J. 1. In order to dispose of this appeal, it is necessary to mention a few facts. There were two sisters, named Dahi and Parwati. Both these sisters were residing together in one house situated at Karjan. Both of them were widows and without any issue. Parwati executed a will on 2-6-1952 and Dahi executed a will on 12-2-1954. Parwati died on 14-4-1954 and Dahi died on 16-5-1954. It is common ground that both Bai Parwati and Bai Dahi created certain religious trusts in their respective wills. Several trustees were appointed by each of the sisters to administer her religious trust. Two of these trustees were common. After the deaths of these two sisters, these two trustees made applications to the Assistant Charity Commissioner, as they were required to do under the law, to register the trusts and showed in each application the properties which, according to them, were trust properties bequeathed by the two sisters- One of the items in each of these two applications was an item ...
Choksi Bhidarbhai Mathurbhai Vs. Purshottamdas Bhogilal Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj10; (1961)2GLR509
* * * * * * * * 4. Mr. N. C. Shah, learned advocate of the appellant, has raised two contentions -- (1) that a suit to set aside the decree on the ground of fraud in the service of summons in not maintainable; and (2) that on the facts of the case, the fraud alleged in the plaint is not proved. Mr. Shah has urged that a suit is not competent to set aside an ex parte decree on the ground that the service of the summons in the suit was improperly effected as a result of which an ex parte order was passed by the court which passed the decree, and the only remedy available to a judgment-debtor in such a case would be to make an application to set aside the ex parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. It has been urged that Order 9 is a self-contained provision to cover all sorts of cases where an ex parte decree could be set aside, and it would, therefore, not he permissible to a litigant to reagitate a cause that has already been decided once by a competent court sa...
Ranchhod Bhalaji and ors. Vs. Modi Kuberdas Hargovandas and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj78; (1962)0GLR137
P.N. Bhagwati, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the same set of facts and will, therefore, be disposed of by a common judgment. The facts giving rise to these appeals are rather peculiar and may be briefly stated as follows.2. The respondent who is the original plaintiff filed Suit No. 2514 of 1948 against the appellants' father Bhalaji Gendal in the Court of the Civil Judge ('Junior Division), Ahmedabad, for a declaration that Bhalaji Gendal was not a permanent tenant of the respondent in respect of a certain field and for possession of the field together with mesne profits. The ground on which possession was sought by the respondent was that Bhalaji Gendal was a tenant of the respondent in respect of the field since 1916-17 A.D. and that the respondent had terminated the tenancy of Bhalaji Gendal by a notice dated 21st February 1947 since the respondent required the field for his personal and non-agricultural use. Bhalaji Gendal in his written statement contended that he was a perman...
Swaransing Laxmansing Vs. Bombay Garage (Ahmedabad) Ltd., Ahmedabad an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj33; (1961)0GLR649
Desai, C.J. 1. The petitioner was employed by the first opponent as a fitter. He was in the service of the first opponent for about 10 years. On 22-8-1958, he was charge-sheeted for insubordination and negligence in the discharge of his duties. After holding the necessary inquiry on 30-8-1958 an order was passed against him discharging him from service with 13 days' wages in lieu of notice. He claimed that as he had put in 10 years service he was entitled to gratuity in accordance with a settlement which had been arrived at between the Union of the employees of the first opponent and the first opponent. Under the terms of that settlement, by Clause (4) it had been provided as follows:'Gratuity will not be paid to an employee who is dismissed for dishonesty or for misconduct.'As no amount of gratuity was paid to the petitioner, he made an application under Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court being Recovery Application No. 34 of 1959. The Presiding Officer of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »