Gujarat Court January 1964 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.
ismail Rasul Shaikh Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-09-1964
Reported in: (1964)5GLR526
V.B. Raju, J.1. The applicant who was accused No. 1 at the trial was convicted under Sections 279 304 337 and 338 Indian Penal Code. The conductor was accused No. 2 at the trial. The prosecution case was that a bus over-loaded with 92 passengers was being driven by accused No. 1 who was the driver. He was driving the bus rashly and negligently and thereby caused the death of 69 persons Both accused Nos. 1 and 2 were tried together.2. In revision it is contended that a joint trial is contrary to the provisions of Section 239 Cri. Pro. Code which will hereinafter be referred to as the Code. Under Section 239 of the Code two different accused persons can be charged and tried together in the circumstances mentioned in that section which so far as relevant reads as follows:The following persons may be charged and tried together namely:(a) persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction;(b) persons accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment or o...
Girdharlal Laljibhai Vs. Nagrashna M.N. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-08-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Guj231; [1964(8)FLR415]; (1964)0GLR413
Mehta, J.1. This is a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India praying for an appropriate order quashing the order of the second labour court, Ahmedabad, dated 29 July 1960, in Recovery Application No. 44 of 1959. The petitioner was a badli folder in the bleach folding department of a cotton textile undertaking run by respondent 2 which is an industrial establishment employing more than 50 persons. The petitioner filed an application under S. 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in the labour court on the ground that he was laid off by respondent 2 in the months of July, August, September, October and November 1958 for 3, 9, 1, 17 and 19 days respectively and that he was not paid lay-off compensation for those days. He prayed for computation of the benefit of lay-off compensation payable to him, and for a certificate being issued to the Collector for recovery of that amount. In that application the fact that the petitioner had put in a continuous service of more than o...
The Firm of Fakirbhai Karsanji and ors. Vs. Gulabbhai Khandubhai Desai ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-07-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Guj277
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is an appeal by the original defendants Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 4. A money decree had been passed against a, joint family formed of the defendants for about fifty thousand rupees, and certain properties were attached in execution of the decree. The attachment and sale of those properties are now challenged in this appeal on the following four grounds:(1) The decree sought to be executed is a decree of the trial Court and not the decree of the appellate Court and therefore the whole execution proceedings should be set aside;(2) There was an amendment application to the Darkhast, which prayed that some more properties should be attached. The prayer for attaching more properties should be made by an independent Darkhast or execution application and not by way of amendment application;(3) Each of the appellants is an agriculturist;and(4) The property is under-valued in the sale proclamation.2. Regarding the first contention that a decree of the trial Court is not executable, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›