Gujarat Court June 1964 Judgments
Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd., Adipur Vs. Thakore (i.G.) (Chair ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-30-1964
Reported in: (1965)IILLJ268Guj
Shelat, C.J.1. The petitioner-corporation has filed this petition for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ and for quashing the award of the industrial tribunal, Gujarat, dated 10 August, 1961, and published in the Gujarat Government Gazette, dated 14 September, 1961. 2. The petitioner-corporation had employed respondent 3 as an accounts clerk in its office at Gandhidham on 13 December, 1950 in the pay-scale of Rs. 150-10-200 on a monthly salary of Rs. 200 and had agreed to pay in addition 20 per cent of the salary as site allowance. The corporation was formed with the object of rustling refugees from Sind. It has developed Gandhidham by constructing houses which were sold to the refugees on easy installment terms and had also established certain industries with a view to provide employment to the refugees. In 1953, the Government of India decided to develop Kandla as a major port and the corporation set up a company by the name of Makenzies Heinrich Butzer (India), Ltd., in ...
Tag this Judgment!Kumbhar Musa Alib Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-29-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Guj101; 1966CriLJ542; (1965)GLR880
1. The appellant was convicted under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, by the learned Sessions Judge, Kutch, for assaulting one Ibrahim. After the assault, he became unconscious and subsequently regained consciousness, but he lost his power of speech. His evidence was, therefore, given by signs under Section 119 of the Evidence Act. If evidence is recorded under that section, there must be a record of signs and not the interpretation of signs. It is true that at some places, the learned Sessions Judge has recorded the signs as well as the interpretations, but the signs made by the witness in answer to several other questions are not recorded but only the interpretations. This is not a correct compliance with Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act. This also does not enable the appellate Court to know whether the interpretation of the signs is correct or not.2. The prosecution also relies on evidence that human blood was found on the axe found with the appellant. But the police constable ...
Tag this Judgment!Kumbhar Musa Alib Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-29-1964
Reported in: (1965)6GLR880
V.B. Raju, J.1. The appellant was convicted under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, by the learned Sessions Judge, Kutch, for assaulting one Ibrahim. After the assault, he became unconscious and subsequently regained consciousness, but he lost his power of speech. His evidence was, therefore, given by signs under Section 119 of the Evidence Act. If evidence is recorded under that section, there must be a record of signs and not the interpretation of signs. It is true that at some places, the learned Sessions Judge has recorded the signs as well as the interpretations, but the signs made by the witness in answer to several other questions are not recorded but only the interpretations. This is not a correct compliance with Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act. This also does not enable the appellate Court to know whether the interpretation of the signs is correct or not.2. The prosecution also relies on evidence that human blood was found on the axe found with the appellant. But the poli...
Tag this Judgment!Govindlal Bhikhabhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-26-1964
Reported in: 1966CriLJ830
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is an appeal against the conviction under Section 12(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. According to the prosecution the accused No. 1 gave Re. 1/- saying the words 'Bombay seven'. The words 'Bombay seven' have got to be explained before the words can be treated as a bet The words can be explained by resort to Section 49 of the Indian Evidence Act by giving opinion of the persons having means of knowledge. The opinion would be relevant if the person giving that opinion has special means of knowledge. Therefore, before opinion becomes relevant, it must be shown to the Courts that the person who gave the opinion, gave the opinion by special means of knowledge. This has not been done in this case. The opinion would not, therefore, be relevant. It is not for the defence to put question to show that the witness has no special means of knowledge. The opinion would be relevant only if the person giving opinion has special means, of knowledge. Therefore, the pros...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. M.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-24-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Guj237
Shelat, C.J. (1) This is an enquiry under Ss. 25 and 26 of the Bombay Pleaders Act, 1920 against the pleader practicing in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Mahuva in the district of Bhavnagar. The proceedings relates to alleged misconduct on the occasions in the course of a Darkhsat proceedings in which the pleader the pleader was a party as a judgment-debtor. The three occasions are - (1) his conduct in improperly obtaining adjournments prior to February 28, 1962, (2) his improper conduct in the open Court on February 28, 1962 when the learned judge was trying the Darkhast, and (3) his addressing a registered letter to the learned Judge, containing certain allegations and insinuations. (2) Prior to February 1962, there were some suits and proceedings filed against the pleader by his creditors and others and pending in the Court at Mahuva. It was in fact his case that he did not resist most of these proceedings and used to settle them after one or more hearings....
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. M. (Pleader)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-24-1964
Reported in: 1965CriLJ491
J.M. Shelat, C.J.1. This is an enquiry under Sections 25 and 26 of the Bombay Pleaders Act, 1920 against the pleader practising in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Mahuva in the district of Bhavnagar. The proceeding relates to alleged misconduct on three occasions in the course of a Darkhast proceeding in which the pleader was a party as a judgment-debtor. The three occasions are-(1) his conduct in improperly obtaining adjournments prior to February 28, 1962, (2) his improper conduct in the open Court on February 28, 1962 when the learned Judge was trying the Darkhast, and (3) his addressing a registered letter to the learned Judge, containing certain allegations and insinuations.2. Prior to February 1982, there were some suits and proceedings filed against the pleader by his creditors and others and pending in the Court at Mahuva. It was in fact his case that he did not resist most of these proceedings and used to settle them after one or two hearings. At the t...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. M.A. Pleader
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-24-1964
Reported in: (1965)6GLR762
J.M. Shelat, C.J.1. This is an enquiry under Sections 25 and 26 of the Bombay Pleaders Act 1920 against the pleader practising in the Court of the learned Civil Judge Junior Division at Mahuva in the district of Bhavnagar. The proceeding relates to alleged misconduct on three occasions in the course of a Darkhast proceeding in which the pleader was a party as a judgment-debtor. The three occasions are (1) his conduct in improperly obtaining adjournments prior to February 28 1962 (2) his improper conduct in the open Court on February 28 1962 when the learned Judge was trying the Darkhast and (3) his addressing a registered letter to the learned Judge containing certain allegations and insinuations.2. Prior to February 1962 there were some suits and proceedings filed against the pleader by his creditors and others and pending in the Court at Mahuva. It was in fact his case that he did not resist most of these proceedings and used to settle them after one or two hearings. At the time of t...
Tag this Judgment!Dhayalal Amathalal Bhagat Vs. Bai Madhukanta
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Guj247; 1965CriLJ497a; (1964)GLR895
(1) An order for maintenance was passed against the petitioner. Subsequently, he obtained a decree for judicial separation against the wife. On this ground he made an application to the learned Magistrate to cancel the maintenance order. The learned Magistrate refused to cancel or vary the maintenance order and he rejected the application of the petitioner.(2) Under section 488 (4), Criminal Procedure Code, no wife shall entitled to receive an allowance from her husband, if she is living in adultery, or if without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately, by mutual consent. It is therefore, clear that, if, without any sufficient reason, the wife refuses to live with her husband, she is not entitled to receive maintenance. Sub-section (2) of section 489, Cr. P.C. reads as follows:'Where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent civil Court, any order made under section 488 should be canceled or v...
Tag this Judgment!Khureshi Ibrahim Ahmed Vs. Ahmed Haji Khanmahomed
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-19-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Guj152; (1965)GLR27
Bhagwati, J. (1) The short question which arises in this second Appeal is as to what is a permanent structure within the meaning of Section 13(1)(b) of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act, 1951. The same expression, we find, has been used also in section 13 of House Rates Control Act, 1947, and the question as to what is the true connection of that expression is therefore, a question of some importance in order to appreciate how the question has arisen, it is necessary to state briefly the facts giving rise to this Second Appeal. (2) One Gulamhussein Haji Dada was at all material times the owner of a piece of land situation Jamnagar. There was an Ota i.e., a raised platform like structure on the piece of land as also fall in it. The piece of land together the with the ota and fall will hereafter be referred to by as suit premises. Gulamhussein Haji Dada was residing most of the time in Burma and one Nurmahed was, therefore, looking after the suit premises on behalf of Gulam Hussein Haji DA...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal Vallabhram Vs. Sheth Kasturbhai Lalbhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-1964
Reported in: (1964)5GLR941
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This Revision Application arises out of a suit originally filed by plaintiff No. 1 against defendants Nos. 1 to 4 for recovering possession of certain premises situate in the City of Ahmedabad. Plaintiff No. 1 was the owner of the premises and he had let them out to defendants Nos. 1 to 3 who were carrying on business in the firm name of Messrs. N.A. Brothers. The contractual rent was Rs. 26/per month. Some time prior to November 1956 plaintiff No. 1 found that defendant No. 4 was in possession of the premises. Plaintiff No. 1 therefore gave a notice dated 30th November 1956 terminating the tenancy of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and calling upon them to hand over possession of the premises. It was alleged in the notice that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 had unlawfully sublet the premises to defendant No. 4 and had therefore forfeited the protection of the Rent Act. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were also in arrears of rent from 1st September 1956 and a demand for arrears of rent was a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›