Gujarat Court June 1962 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.
Bhaishanker Avalram Joshi Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-24-1962
Reported in: (1963)0GLR1001
1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal. Plaintiff joined service in the Gondal State as a jailor in 1927. He was serving as a jailor at Gondal in 1948 when the State of Gondal merged with the United States of Kathiawar. Plaintiff was absorbed as a servant of that State. Subsequently, he was transferred to Surendranagar in 1951 and, on or about 1 August, 1952, he was promoted as a senior jailor. Later on, he was transferred to Rajkot and demoted as an accountant. In 1953, he was serving as an accountant in the Central Jail at Rajkot. Whilst he was so serving, charges ware levelled against the plaintiff on the ground that, in or about 1952, whilst he was serving at Surendranagar, he had committed certain defaults by misappropriation of foodstuffs, maltreatment of prisoners and acceptance of illegal gratifications from them. Plaintiff was suspended on 25 March 1954 and, on 27 March 1954, he was served with a chargesheet making the aforesaid allegations against him. Plaintiff filed a writt...
State Vs. Kanasara Manilal Bhikhalal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-21-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Guj105; 1963CriLJ595; (1963)0GLR34; (1963)IILLJ519Guj
Divan, J.1. This is an appeal by the Stale of Gujarat against theorder passed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, setting aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wadhwan, in respect of an offence under the Factories Act, 1948.2. The prosecution case is that the accused in tniscase is the manager and occupier of a factory known asSaurashtra Metal and Mechanical Works, Wadhwan, and that he had contravened the provisions of Section 63 of the Factories Act, 1948, by allowing the workers of the factory to work otherwise, than in accordance with the periods of work mentioned on the Notice Board and the Register. The prosecution case further was that on June 21, 1960, at about 5-50 A.M. the Inspector of Factories, Mr. K. U. Shah, visited the factory in question and he found three workers working in the factory even though the time for these workers as mentioned in the notice Board and the Register was from 7 A.M. The defen...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›