Gujarat Court June 1961 Judgments
Miyana Hasan Abdulla and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-28-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj214; (1962)GLR107
Raju, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, convicted two persons, namely, Lakhman Lakha and Hasam Abdulla, who were accused Nos. 1 and 2 in, Sessions Case No. 20/60 before him under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code for haying committed the murder of one Chandubha Madarsing at about 9 P. M, on 5-5-1960 near the Maha Laxmi Talkies at Surendranagar. Lakhman Lakha has filed Cri. Appeal No. 578 of 1960 and Hasam Abdulla has filed Cri. Appeal No. 566 of 1960. For convenience, the two appeals filed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been heard together and this judgment will dispose of both the appeals.) * * * * *7. *****The evidence of this witness P. C. Jabubha is, however, attacked on, the ground that he had not given his complaint at about 9-45 P. M. as alleged by the prosecution. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the complaint must have been given after Natwarlal and Gajrajgar had gone to the hospital and after they had decided to Involve the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal Nandlal Sharma and anr. Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-28-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj231; (1962)3GLR433
ORDERP.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This Revision Application is directed against an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Baroda, dismissing an application for revision of the order of conviction and sentence passed against accused Nos. 1 and 2 for. offences under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Nos. I and 2 along with accused No. 3 were charged for offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The charges for all the three offences against accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were joined together and there was one joint trial for these offences.The learned Magistrate tried the case summarily and followed the procedure prescribed for summons cases. As a result of the trial the learned Magistrate convicted accused Nos. 1 and 2 of the offences under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 40/- or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven days. The learned Magistrate acquitted accused Nos. 1 and 2 of the charges under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Miyana Hasam Abdulla Vs. the State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-28-1961
Reported in: (1962)3GLR107
V.B. Raju, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge Surendranagar convicted two persons namely Lakhman Lakha and Hasam Abdulla who were accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions case No. 20/60 before him under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of one Chandubha Madarsing at about 9 P.M. on 5-5-1960 near the Maha Laxmi Talkies at Surendranagar. Lakhman Lakha has filed Cri. Appeal No. 578 of 1960 and Hasam Abdulla has filed Cri. Appeal No. 566 of 1960. For convenience the two appeals filed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been heard together and this judgment will dispose of both the appeals.His Lordship after stating the facts proceeded:2. The evidence of this witness P.C. Jatubha is however attacked on the ground that he had not given his complaint at about 3-45 P.M. as alleged by the prosecution. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants the complaint must have been given after Natwarlal and Gajrajgar had gone to the hospital and after they had deci...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sidhpur Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-26-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj305; (1961)GLR681
ORDERN.M. Miabhoy, J.1. This is a petition under Section 394, read with Section 391, Indian Companies Act, 1956 (No. 1 of 1956), for amalgamating two textile Mills. The petitioner is The Sidhpur Mills Company Limited, having its registered office at Sidhpur, District Mehsana, in the State of Gujarat, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sidhpur Company'). The petition is opposed by one of the Directors of the Company, two partners of the firm of the Managing Agents and some shareholders of the company.2. The Sidhpur Company was incorporated in about 1921 and, on the 1st of April 1959, the authorized capital of the company was Rs. 75 lacs divided into 50,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 100/- each and 25,000 preference shares of Rs. 100/- each and its issued, subscribed an paid up capital was Rs. 15,09,000/- divided into 15,096 ordinary shares of Rs. 100/- each. On 1st August, 1959, Messrs. Maganlal Prabhudas and Company were the managing agents of the company. The firm consisted of eight partner...
Tag this Judgment!Juvansinhji Balusinhji and ors. Vs. Balbhadrasinhji Indrasinhji and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-23-1961
Reported in: [1962]32CompCas1162(Guj); (1962)GLR715
1. This application raises a short and interesting question of law regarding the right construction to be put on sections 87 to 90 of the Companies Act, 1956. These sections which relate to voting rights did not find a place in the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and have been introduced for the first time in the Companies Act, 1956. There is no provision in the English Companies Act, 1948, corresponding to these sections nor is there any authority of any High Court in this country which throws light on the interpretation of these sections. The question of construction posed by this application has, therefore, to be decided by me on the language of these sections unaided by any authority or dicta of any court in this country or in England. The facts giving rise to this application are few and for the most part undisputed and may be briefly stated as follows : The Lakhtar Ginning Company Private Limited was incorporated as a public company limited by shares in the old Lakhtar State in Decem...
Tag this Judgment!Juvansinhji Balusinhji and ors. Vs. Bhalbhadrasinhji Indrasinhji and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-23-1961
Reported in: (1962)0GLR715
1. This application raises a short and interesting question of law ;regarding the right construction to be put insurrection 87 to 90 of the companies Act, 1956,. These sections which relate to voting rights did not find a place in the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and have been introduced for the first time in the Companies ACt, 1956. there is no provision in the English Companies Act, 1948, corresponding to theses section nor is there any authority of any High court in this country which throws light on the interpretation of these section. the question of construction posed by this application has, therefore, to be decided ;by me on the language of these section unpaid by any authority or dicta of any court in this court or in England. The facts gins rise to this application are few and for the most part undisputed and may be briefly stated as follows: The Lakhtar Ginning Company Private Limited was incorporated as a public company limited by shares in the old Lakhtar4 state in December...
Tag this Judgment!Juvan Sinhji Balusinhji and ors. Vs. Balbhadrasinhji Indrasinhji and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-23-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Guj209; (1962)3GLR715
ORDERP.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This application raises a short and interesting question of law regarding the right construction to be put on Sections 87 to 90 of the Companies Act, 1956. These Sections which relate to voting rights did not find a place in the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and have been introduced for the first time in the Companies Act, 1956. There is no provision in the English Companies Act, 1948, corresponding to these sections nor is there any authority of any High Court in this country which throws light on the interpretation of these sections. The question of construction posed by this application has, therefore, to be decided by me on the language of these sections unaided by any authority or dicta of any Court in this country or in England. The facts giving rise to this application are few and for the most part undisputed and may be briefly stated as follows.2. The Lakthar Ginning Company Private Limited was incorporated as a public Company limited by shares in the old...
Tag this Judgment!Harij Gram Panchayat Vs. Thakkar Lakhiram Ramji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj14; (1961)GLR660
P.N. Bhagwati, J. 1. The second contention of Mr. S.N. Patel was founded on the plea of limitation. According to Mr. S.N. Patel the suit as originally filed claimed a decree in favour of the firm of Thakkar Lakhiram Ramji and it was only by the application for leave to amend that a decree in favour of Thakkar Lakhiram Ramji as an individual was sought for the first time against the Harij Village Panchayat. The contention of Mr. S.N. Patel was that on 19th March 1953 when the application for leave to amend the plaint was made, the cause of action for refund of the amount of the deposit was time-barred since a period of three years had already elapsed from the date of accrual of the cause of action and that no relief could, therefore, be granted in favour of Thakkar Lakhiram Ramji as an individual. In my opinion this contention is also without any substance. The cause of action in the suit was for recovery of the amount deposited by Thakkar Lakhiram Ramji with the Harij Municipality as a...
Tag this Judgment!Magan Raising Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-14-1961
Reported in: (1962)3GLR700
V.B. Raju, J.1. His Lordship after discussing the evidence allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant. His Lordship further observed.2. Before parting with this case it is necessary to observe that in this case among the record the copies of the police statements of the witnesses were found but not the original. We would like to observe that under Section 207A(6) the Magistrate before whom a committal inquiry is held has to consider all the documents referred to in Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 173 enumerates certain documents and provides that copies of such documents should be given to the accused. Section 207A then provides that all the documents referred to in Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code have to be considered by the Magistrate before he commits or discharges the accused. The phrase all the documents referred to in Section 173 clearly refers to the original documents and not to the copies given to the accused. S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›