Gujarat Court April 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.
Ahmedabad Millowners' Association and Anr. Vs. Thakore (i.G.) (Preside ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Guj112; (1964)GLR705; (1965)ILLJ567Guj
Shelat, C.J. 1. This is a petition for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the reference dated 29 July, 1961 made under S. 73A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, by respondent 2 association to the industrial court and the order made by the industrial court negativing certain preliminary issues raised by the petitioner-association and for restraining the industrial court from proceeding further with the reference. The reference was made in the following circumstances. 2. Under the standing orders settled under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, which are determinative under S. 40(2) of the Act in respect of matters enumerated in Sch. I thereto including 'conditions, procedure and authority to grant leave' and in particular standing orders 11 and 12 and binding on the petitioners and respondent 2 association, it was provided that service for a total period of twelve months in a textile mill should quality an operative for a total period of one m...
The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad Vs. Premchand Mahas ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-29-1964
Reported in: (1964)5GLR847
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. These two appeals arise from a common order passed on 11th of April 1960 by the learned District Judge Ahmedabad in Civil Appeals Nos. 370 of 1958 and 371 of 1958 by which he allowed the appeals with costs set aside the decrees of the trial Court in Civil Suits Nos. 529 of 1956 and 273 of 1957 and remanded the suits for hearing and deciding them on merits. The appellant in both the High Court appeals is the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad the original defendant (hereinafter called Corporation). In appeal No. 77 of 1960 the respondents are the heirs of one Premchand Mahasukhram the original plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 273 of 1957 (hereinafter called plaintiff Premchand). In appeal No. 78 of 1960 the respondent is the Rustom Jehangir Vakil Mills Company Limited the original plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 529 of 1956 (hereinafter called the Mills) A common point of law arose in both the District Court appeals. Therefore the learned District Judge disposed of...
Punja Mava Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Guj5; 1965CriLJ30; (1965)GLR129
Mehta, J. ** ** ** ** ** **The defence has, therefore, seriously challenged the extra judicial confession on the following grounds:(1) That it was hit by Section 24 of the Evidence Act (herein after referred to us 'the Act') as it was procured after inducement made that accused No.1 would be saved by these persons if he told the truth and that such inducement proceeded from a person in authority, viz., the Police Patel Dhula Kashna;(2) That it was hit by Section 25 of the Act as it was a confessional statement made to a police officer, and (3)That even the discovery part was not admissible as accused No. 1 was not in the police custody at the time when he made such a statement.The prosecution, however, has relied on the fact that such a confession was made to a crowd and not to the Police Patel himself and that, therefore, it was not hit by Section. 24 or 25 of the Act. Mr. Vidyarthi also contended that in any event the information part which directly related to the discovery was admis...
Anil Starch Products Ltd. Vs. Industrial Court, Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-14-1964
Reported in: (1965)GLR682; (1965)IILLJ441Guj
Shelat, C.J.1. By an order dated September 19, 1962 the Government of Gujarat referred to the industrial tribunal certain disputes between the petitioner company and its workmen under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. These disputes related to classification, redesignation and payment of wage- scales, increments according to the respective categories, abolition of the category of the daily-rated workmen, and dearness allowance. The wage-scales were fixed by an award in Reference (I.T.) Nos. 266 and 395 of 1958. Though there was no demand in the present reference for the revision of wage-scales the demand was for reclassification of certain categories. 2. Though there were thus several demands, all of which were referred to the tribunal, the tribunal gave its award only in respect of one of them, namely on demand 2. The tribunal decided to give its award on the rest of the demands at a later date although it had heard the parties on all of the and had also inspected the ...
Adam Asmal Abhram Dadabhai and ors. Vs. Hiralal Chimanlal Thakore
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Guj131; (1965)GLR99
Mehta, J. (1) This group of seven Civil Revision Application under sections 115 of the Civil Procedure Code involves a common question of law as to whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide an issue referred to it by the Mamlatdar regarding the question of title which has arisen before him in a proceeding under the Tenancy Act * * * * (2) Mr. A.D.Desai, while contending that such a reference was competent, has raised three other points before us:(1) that it was not open to the petitioner to challenge the order of the High Court in this indirect manner? (2) That the petitioner having not challenged the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and having participated in thesaid decision on merits of, he is now produced from raising this question? (3) That the High Courts order in substance and effect being the order of transfer of a case, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to give its decision on the question directed by the High Court. (5) In order to appreciate Mr. Desai's contention it...
ibrahim Isaphai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Guj6
Miabhoy, J.1. Civil Revision Application No. 826 of 1000 is made under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act and is directed against the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Broach in Small Cause Suit No. 170 of 1958. That suit was brought by petitioner herein for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1099-74 nP. on the allegation that the opponent--Union of India which was, at the relevant time, the owner of the Western and the Central Railways had failed to discharge its duty as a bailee in respect of a part of a consignment, booked from Bhopal to Broach. The Union of India contested the suit on a number of grounds. The ground material to he mentioned for the purposes of this revision petition is that petitioner was not entitled to sue on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not necessary to mention the other defences of the Union because it is conceded by Mr. Majumdar that those other defences would fall to be considered only if a finding is reco...
ibrahim Isabhai Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Representing Western Rail ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-1964
Reported in: (1964)5GLR879
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. Civil Revision Application No. 826 of 1960 is made under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act and is directed against the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Broach in Small Cause Suit No. 370 of 1958. That suit was brought by petitioner herein for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1099-74 nP. on the allegation that the opponent Union of India which was at the relevant time the owner of the Western and the Central Railways had failed to discharge its duty as a bailee in respect of a part of a consignment booked from Bhopal to Broach. The Union of India contested the suit on a number of grounds The ground material to be mentioned for the purposes of this revision petition is that the petitioner was not entitled to sue on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not necessary to mention the other defences of the Union because it is conceded by Mr. Majmudar that those other defences would fall to be considered only if a finding is ...
Mulu Laxman Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Guj319; 1965CriLJ762; (1964)GLR591
Divan, J.(1) In the instant case, Alubha Bawaji has been treated as the first informant and his first information report has been brought on the record as Ex. 8 is not the first information report contemplated by S.154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. P.S.I.Patil, P.W.39, Ex.84, has clearly stated in his evidence that at about 2 A.M. on October 9, 1962, he received information from a Police Constable in connection with this case. He was informed that Rathuba and others of Kharkharabela,. Who had received injuries, had been brought to the dispensary and that their condition was serious. P.S.I Patil then sent a Yadi to the Taluka Magistrate for recording their dying declarations. After sending the Yadi, P.S.I.Patil left his quarters at about 2-10 A.M. and went to the dispensary. There he received information that Ratubha had already expired and he ascertained for himself going to the cart of Ratubha that Ratubha was dead. In the meanwhile, the Taluka Magistrate arrived and went inside ...
Mehta Amritlal Gokaldas and ors. Vs. the State of Bombay and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Guj87; (1964)10GLR769
Miabhoy, J.(1) In this group of six appeals, a preliminary objection has been raised for decision. The objection was first raised when Letters Patent Appeal No. 8 of 1960 was called out for hearing. As the objection affected a number of other Letters Patent Appeals, we adjourned the hearing of the appeal and directed that all other Letters Patent Appeals in which the same objection was likely to be raised should be fixed for hearing them together so that the preliminary objection, if raised, could be decided after hearing all the learned Advocates appearing therein. It is in pursuance of that order that all the above appeals are fixed for hearing the preliminary objection if the same happens to be raised. This judgment will dispose of the preliminary objection which is raised by all the learned Advocates for the respondents in all the appeals.(2) The preliminary objection is that the present appeals are incompetent without the certificate of the learned Judgers of he Bombay High Court ...
Rajkunvarba Wd/O. Jadeja Pratapsinhji Khanji Vs. Randhirsinhji Kalyans ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-1964
Reported in: (1964)5GLR907
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. This appeal comes from the Kutch area. On behalf of respondents Mr. Mankad raises a preliminary objection that no appeal lies from the appellate decree of the learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court.2. It will be convenient to mention a few facts at first. Suit No. 40 of 1952 was Sled in the District Court of Kutch at Bhuj on the 16th June 1952 That suit was dismissed by the District Court on the 14th of October 1957. The plaintiff filed from the decree in that suit First Appeal No. 8 of 1958 in the High Court of Bombay sitting at Rajkot. That appeal was decided by a single Judge of that High Court. That appeal was dismissed on 27th August 1958. Prom that appellate decree plaintiff preferred an appeal to the same High Court of Bombay which was numbered as Letters Patent Appeal No. 28 of 1959. That appeal was admitted by a Division Bench of that High Court on the 27th of April 1959 Whilst this appeal was pending on the file of the Bombay High Court the Bombay Re...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »