Gujarat Court August 1961 Judgments
Yusuf Ibrahim Mansuri Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-29-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj194; (1962)0GLR85
Shelat, J.1. This is a petition for a writ of prohibitionrestraining the respondents from deporting orexterning the petitioner from out of the territoryof India, the petitioner's case being that he is acitizen of India.2. The petitioner entered India on November 17, 1954. on a Pakistani passport dated the 2nd of November 1954 bearing No. 239028. After coming to India he was employed by his cousin, one Yusuf Ismail Lala, a forest contractor carrying on business in Godhra, first as a cleaner and thereafter as a driver of a motor-truck. The petitioner obtained a licence from the R.T.O.. Baroda, for . the purpose of enabling him to drive the motortruck, and got himself married to one Kulsum, the daughter of Moosa Gafur of village Vejalpur in district Panchmahals. Thereafter he was prosecuted in criminal case No. 743 of 1958 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Godhra, on a charge under See. 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, read with paragraph 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948...
Tag this Judgment!Chaudhari Abheraj Hemraj Vs. the Collector Mehsana and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-23-1961
Reported in: (1962)3GLR192
J.M. Shelat, J.1. This is a petition challenging the jurisdiction of the collector Mehsana in respect of an order passed by him under Section 23(2) of the Mamlatdars Courts Act 1906.2. The petitioners case is that he was at all material time the tenant in respect of Section No. 519/3 situate in village Motidau and that his possession of that Section No. was taken away contrary to the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 by respondents 2 and 3. He therefore filed an application before the Mamlatdar Mehsana being Tenancy Application No. 69 of 1956 for a declaration that the sale of the land Section No. 519/3 by respondent No. 4 in favour of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 was contrary to the provisions of sections 63 and 64 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 that the sale should be declared invalid and that possession of that land should be restored to him. The Mamlatdar made his order on the 16th of September 1957 granting the declaration asked fo...
Tag this Judgment!Gokaldas Kalyanji and anr. Vs. Mohanlal Manjibhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-21-1961
Reported in: 1963CriLJ531; (1962)GLR796
ORDERP.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This Criminal Revision Application arises out of an order made by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajkot, setting aside an order made by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajkot, and directing that the complainant be allowed to retain possession of all the muddamal articles. The muddamal articles consist mainly of agricultural implements of various kinds, machinery, engine and such other articles including a pair of bullocks. The matter arose in this way. The case of the complainant was that he was. In actual possession of the Vadi situate on the left-hand side of the Rajkot-Kotharia Road and his Sathi Karamsi Nathu was doing all the agricultural work and residing in-the Vadi. The complainant alleged that on 15th April 1960V Karamsi Nathu went to some village after locking the; rooms in his possession as also the gate of the Vadi and during the absence of Karamsi Nathu the accused broker open the locks of the gate of the Vadi and the rooms, committed criminal t...
Tag this Judgment!Ruxmaniben Tribhovandas Jethabhai Vs. Minor Narmada Alias Nandu and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj227; (1962)0GLR566
ORDERP.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This Revision Application is directed against an order made by the learned Assistant Judge, Baroda, dismissing the application of the petitioner for interim custody of the minor Narmada. The circumstances under which the application came to be filed by the petitioner may be briefly stated as follows :2. The petitioner is the mother of Narmada who is 71/2 years old. The case of the petitioner was that Narmada was betrothed to opponent No. 4 who is the son of opponents Nos. 2 and 3. Opponents Nos. 2 and G wanted to show Narmada to the residents of their village and they accordingly took away Narmada with, them on 4th June 1961. After about four or five days the petitioner's son went to bring back Narmada but opponents Nos. 2 to 4 refused to send Narmada back to the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon filed a petition in the District Court, Baroda, under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, praying for an order for the return of the minor to the custo...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Parvatiben Bhanabhai Patel Vs. Jugabhai Jeebhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Guj107; (1962)GLR754
Shelat, J.1. This is a petition for a writ or order in the nature of mandamus or certiorari to set aside the order passed by the City Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad, dated the 7th of June 1961, and to compel the State Government to grant a lease in respect of the land in question, viz., survey No. 231 for the year 1961-62 to the petitioner. The petitioner is the owner of survey No. 230 which is situate adjacent to the land in question, viz., survey No. 231. Survey No. 231 is a land which became liable to be disposed of under Section 32P or Section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Until its final disposal as contemplated under the said Act, the land was to be given on lease for a year so that it may not remain uncultivated until the time that it was disposed of. On the 24th of August 1959 an eksal lease was granted by the revenue authorities to the petitioner for the year 1959-60. On the expiry of that lease the petitioner applied on 22nd February, 1961 for a fre...
Tag this Judgment!Jogta Kikla Vs. the State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-16-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj225; (1962)0GLR571
Raju, J.1. The Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Surat acquitted the appellant of the charge of having murdered Bai Jamil but he convicted him under Section 201 for having caused the evidence of her murder to disappear with the requisite intention and with the requisite knowledge.2. The prosecution case was that after the appellant was arrested, he made a statement before the police and panchas that he would discover a scythe and blood-stained clothes which had been concealed in certain fields. According to the prosecution, the scythe was the weapon used for the commission of the offence and the clothes were those of the accused. In view of this evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 201, I. P. C., although he had acquitted him under Section 302 I. P. C. on the charge of having caused the murder of Bal Jamli.3. In our opinion, the appeal must be allowed and the conviction must be set aside for the following reasons :4. The prosecution case is that the...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Jamnadas Vasanji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-14-1961
Reported in: (1962)0GLR136; (1962)IILLJ80Guj
1. This group consists of three criminal revision applications concerning three workers employed in the factory, namely, Shanta, Savita and Nirmala. The allegation of the prosecution was that the accused as the manager of the factory did not maintain a register of adult workers showing the names of these three workers and that a distinct and separate offence under S. 62(a) read with S. 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, was, therefore, committed by the accused in respect of each of these three workers and three different cases were accordingly filed against the accused. The learned magistrate consolidated all the three cases into one and on the accused pleading guilty, passed a single sentence of fine of Rs. 10 or in default simple imprisonment for seven days. The State has, therefore, filed this group of criminal revision applications complaining against the passing of one single sentence of fine in three cases and praying for enhancement of the sentence. 2. Turning to S. 62 of the Act, I...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Jamnadas Vasanji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-14-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj234; [1962(4)FLR282]; (1962)3GLR136
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This group consists of three Criminal Revision Applications concerning three workers employed in the factory namely Shanta, Savita and Nirmala. The allegation of the prosecution was that the accused as the Manager of the factory did not maintain a Register of Adult Workers showing the names of these three workers and that a distinct and separate offence under Section 62(a) read with Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, was therefore, committed by the accused in respect of each of these three workers and three different cases wereaccordingly filed against the accused. The learned Magistrate consolidated all the three cases into one and on the accused pleading guilty, passed a single sentence of fine of Rs. 10/-or in default simple imprisonment for seven days. The State has, therefore, filed this group of Criminal Revision Applications complaining against the passing of one single sentence of fine in three cases and praying for enhancement of the sentence.2. Turning...
Tag this Judgment!Jamna W/O Bhagwandas Vanmali and ors. Vs. Haji Ahmed Haji Yakub and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-11-1961
Reported in: (1962)3GLR843
R.B. Mehta, J.1. This is a civil revision application against an order passed by the learned District Judge Surat on preliminary issue in regard to the maintainability of the suit as well as the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 by which the learned District Judge held against the petitioners that the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit and that the suit was maintainable.The facts giving rise to the petition are this way: The suit was filed by the five plaintiffs on 18th August 1954 as realtors with the sanction of the Charity Commissioner under Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 The allegation made in the plaint was that there was a public religious and charitable trust known as Sitab Pir Durgah at Navsari. It was further alleged that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were the 'Mujavars of that Durgah and that before them their deceased father Jamalsha was the 'Mujavar of that Durgah. It was further alleged ...
Tag this Judgment!Dinkarray Raghnath Vs. the State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-08-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Guj15; 1963CriLJ162; (1962)GLR701
Shelat, J.12. On behalf of the accused, Mr. Mankad raisedcertain questions of law regarding the jurisdiction of thelearned trial Judge and misjoinder of charges. Briefly stated, his contentions were as follows:(1) That the learned Special Judge had no jurisdiction to try the accused on the charge under Section 477A of the Penal Code.(2) That the trial suffered from illegality as thecharges were in contravention of Sections 233 and 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as the offences or criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Penal Code, misconduct arising from the acts of criminal breach of trust and falsifications of accounts in respect of the sums of Rs. 40/-, Rs. 15/- and Rs. 392/- could not be joined together and the accused could not be validly tried in one joint trial.(3) That the acts of misconduct as defined in 5. 5 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were in respect of four distinct sums, viz., Rs. 40/-, Rs. 15/-, Rs. 20/-end Rs. 392/- and as the pr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »