Gujarat Court September 1961 Judgments
Rathod Bhojaji Shantuji Vs. Pathan Nasirkhan Kesharkhan and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-30-1961
Reported in: (1962)3GLR803
J.M. Shelat, J.1. This special Civil Application arises from an election application filed under Section 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1958 the village Tundali situate in Mehsana Taluka has a Panchayat constituted under Section 9 of the Act and that Panchayat consists of 7 members. The village is divided into 3 wards. Ward No. 1 has two seats out of which one is reserved for Harijans. Ward No. 2 has two seats out of which one is reserved for women and ward No. 3 has 3 seats out of which one is reserved for women. In other wards there are four general seats two seats reserved for women and one seat reserved for Harijans.On December 16 1960 a general election was held wherein the petitioner and respondents 1, 2 and 4 contested for the two general seats in ward No. 3. Respondents 3 and 5 contested for the seat reserved for women in that ward. Respondents 1 and 2 got 108 votes each while the petitioner and respondent No. 4 got 106 votes each. Respondents 3 and 5 who had contested...
Tag this Judgment!Chandubhai Jethabhai Desai Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-29-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj290; (1962)0GLR833
ORDERP.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These two Revision Applications arise out of a peculiar application made by the complainant and a still more peculiar order made by the learned Magistrate on such applications. The accused was charged for the offence of defamation to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nadiad. It is not necessary to set out the facts leading upto the filing of the complaint against the accused; but it is sufficient to state that the complaint was filed against the accused on the ground that at a meeting which was held by the Commissioner, the accused used a word derogatory of the complainant. The case was fixed for hearing on 16th November 1960 and on that date the evidence of the complainant commenced. After the examination-in-chief of the complainant was concluded, the advocate of the accused who is the petitioner before me in Revision Application no. 256 of 1961 started the cross-examination of the complainant. In the course of the cross-examina-tion, the advo...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalashanker Bhuleshanker Dave Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-28-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Guj312; 1963CriLJ525
Divan, J.1-8. * * * .9. In support of its case against accused No. 1,the prosecution led the evidence of Mr. J. C. Tri-vedi, Inquiry Officer; and the prosecution reliedupon the two statements made by accused No. 1before Mr. Trivedi. The first statement was madeon February 9, 1952 and that statement is Ex. 43on the record. The other statement was made onFebruary 22, 1958 and that statement is Ex. 42 onthe record. According to the prosecution, Ex. 42contained certain statements of self-inculpatorynature and amounted to a confession on the partof accused No. 1. It was urged before us thatEx. 42 was made by accused No. 1 in the courseof the inquiry conducted by Mr. J. C. Trivediwhen the evidence was recorded on oath and.therefore, this statement, Ex. 42, was hit by theprovisions of Article 20(3) of the Constitution ofIndia. We will first deal with the legal aspectof this matter before considering the contents ofEx. 42. As is well known, Article 20(3) providesagainst testimonial compulsion ...
Tag this Judgment!Shrimati Kusumgauri Ramray Munshi and ors. Vs. the Special Land Acquis ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Guj92; (1962)GLR905
Mehta, J. * * *14. * * * In regard to this transaction of lease with option to purchase, Ex. 151, in regard to S. Nos. 47/1 and 47/2, it is necessary to appreciate the arguments of the claimants before us to know the real nature of this transaction. S. No. 47/1 comprises of 1 acre and 23 Guntas and the claimants have 1/4th share in the total area of 7 Gun-thas of S. No. 47/2. This document, which at this stage for the sake o convenience we shall describe as a lease with option to purchase document, is entered into between the claimants of S. Nos. 47/1 and 47/2, as the purchasers-cum-lessees, again an expression used as a matter of convenience, on the one side and the vender owner Bacharbhai Bapuji on the other side, on 2nd May, 1946. This document, Ex. 151 recites that there was a prior agreement between the parties by which S. Nos. 47/1 and 47/2 were to be leased with option to purchase. That prior agreement was dated 6th November, 1945. It is further recited that Rs. 2000/-were paid ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Ukaji Devaji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj84; (1962)0GLR1
Desai, C.J.1. The question referred to this Full Bench is as follows : --'Whether the expression 'found drunk' used in Section 85(1)(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act has the same meaning as that assigned in Section 2(12) of the Act'.Section 85 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, to the extent that is relevant, provides as follows : --85 (1). -- Whoever in any street or thoroughfare or public place or in any place to which the public have or are permitted to have access:(1) is drunk and incapable of taking care of himself, or (2) behaves in a disorderly manner under influence of drink, or (3) is found drunk but who is not the holder of permit granted under the previsions of this Act or is not eligible to hold a permit under Sections 40, 41, 46 or 46-A shall, on conviction, be punished:-- (i) for an offence under Clause (1) or Clause (3), (a) for a first offence, with imprisonment which may extend to one month and with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees; ***** (ii) for an off...
Tag this Judgment!Vithalrao Annasaheb Qaekwad Vs. Abbasbhai Abdulhusen and the State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-1961
Reported in: (1962)3GLR815
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This reference has been made by the Sessions Judge Ahmedabad recommending that that part of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Dehgam which required accused No. 1 to furnish an indemnity bond for Rs. 10 0 with one surety in like amount in favour of the complainant be set aside. The complainant filed a complaint against the accused for offences under Sections 427 and 448 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Dehgam. The case of the complainant was that the field bearing Survey No. 156 was in the possession of the complainant and that the compainant owned all the trees in the field and that the accused had committed criminal trespass on the field and wrongfully cut some of the trees on the field resulting in offences under Sections 427 and 448 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that prior to the date of the complaint the complainant had filed a suit in the Court o...
Tag this Judgment!Lalu Jela and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-16-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Guj125; (1962)0GLR397
Desai, C.J.1. The questions referred for decision to this Full Bench are:(1) Whether when several persons are convicted at a single trial by a Sessions Judge or by an Additional Sessions Judge, all or some of the convicted persons can file one joint petition of appeal to the High Court, or whether in such a case it is necessary to file separate appeals with separate petitions? (2) Whether Rule 6 in Chapter XXVI of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules is inconsistent with Chapter XXXI of the Criminal Procedure Code? At the outset it was urged before us that the Reference to this Full Bench by the Division Bench consisting of Justice Raju and Justice Bakshi is not competent we see no force in this contention. The Chief Justice has the power to constitute a Full Bench and in the exercise of the power of the Chief Justice this Pull Bench has been constituted on a reference being made for that purpose by a Division Bench of this Court. Ordinarily except for compelling reasons a Divisi...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Abdul Suttar Haji Ibrahim Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Guj226; 1963CriLJ265; (1963)0GLR1073
Raju, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of respondent Abdul Sattar Haji Ibrahim by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Godhra in Criminal Case No. 1807 under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act.2. The charge against the respondent was that having entered into India at Ahmedabad on 13-10-57 under the authority of Pakistani Pass-port bearing No. 351544 dated 11-8-55 and 'C' Visa bearing No. 22144 dated 5-10-1957 and having obtained Residential Permit No. 322/57 from the Registration Officer, Ahmedabad which permitted him to stay in India upto 12-12-1957, he failed to leave India. It was also mentioned in the charge that the period of stay in India had been extended upto 12-1-1958 by the District Magistrate, Panchmahals and further extended upto 12-4-1958 by the Secretary to the Government of Bombay.3. In his examinatipn at the trial, the respondent stated that he had committed no offence as he is a national of India and therefore, not bound to leave India. ...
Tag this Judgment!Jadeja Pravinsinhji Anandsinhji Vs. Jadeja Mangalsinhji Shivsinhji and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-06-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Guj32
K.K. Mehta, J.1. This is a civil revision application against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Morvi, allowing an Amendment of the prayer by the substituted applicant in Probate Case No. 8/1957 on the file of the learned Judge. The matter arises this way:-The deceased testatrix Bai Jivubai made a will dated 14th December, 1946, appointing one Jadeja Shivubha Madhavsang as an executor of her said will. After the death of the testatrix, Shivubha applied for the probate of the will on 6th February, 1957. The four opponents to the said application were the heirs of the deceased and each of them was a beneficiary under the will of the deceased testatrix. The applicant executor died pending probate proceedings on 17th January, 1960. On the 25th January, 1960, opponent No. 1 in the original Probate Application, Jadeja Mangalsinhji Shivsinhji, who is also opponent No. 1 in the present revision application applied to the Probate Court that he be transposed as a plain...
Tag this Judgment!Chimanlal Kodarlal and ors. Vs. the District Deputy Collector, Anand
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-06-1961
Reported in: (1962)3GLR787
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. These three appeals arise from the judgment dated 3rd February 1958 delivered by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Nadiad in Compensation Cases Nos. 14 19 and 20 of 1956 by which the learned Judge rejected those references obtained by three different sets of claimants. First Appeal No. 194 of 1960 arises from Compensation Case No. 14 of 1956 First Appeal No. 195 of 1960 arises from Compensation Case No. 19 of 1956 and First Appeal No. 215 of 1960 arises from Compensation Case No. 20 of 1956. The lands in all these three references were notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 11 March 1950. The acquisition was for and on behalf of the Associated Cement Companies Bombay In appeal No. 194 of 1960 three lands bearing survey Nos. 303 304 and 305/1 measuring 77 bighas and 14 vasas are involved. In appeal No. 195 of 1960 six lands bearing survey Nos. 317, 318, 319, 320, 320 and 321 measuring 130 bighas and 1 vasa are involved. In appeal No. 215 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »