Gujarat Court July 1964 Judgments
Jamnadas Chhotalal Desai and ors. Vs. C.L. Nangia and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-31-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Guj215; (1965)0GLR137
Shelat, C.J.(1) The common questions arise in this case and the following petitions Nos. 752 of 1961, 1054 of 1963, 639 of 1963 and 917 of 1963 and therefore, it would be expedient to have disposed of together. In the last three petitions Nos. 1054 of 1963, 639 and 917 of 1963 however, some additional questions are raised and therefore, they will have to be dealt with separately. The two questions that are common to all these petitions are (1) whether the petitioners are manufacturers of cotton fabrics as defined in the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and the rules made thereunder, and (2) even if they are so, whether the cotton fabrics in question which they are said to have manufactured or got manufactured, attract the provisions of Rules 7 and 9 of these rules or whether they enjoy exemption granted under the notification issued by the Central Government under Rule 8 of those rulesNo. 751 of 1961(2) In this petition, we are concerned with Tarun Trading Co., a proprietary concern c...
Tag this Judgment!Charity Commissioner of Bombay Vs. Chandrakant Harmandas and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-1964
Reported in: (1964)5GLR959
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is a first Appeal against the order of the learned Extra Assistant Judge at Nadiad reversing the decision of the Charity Commissioner who held that the property in question was a public trust. The learned Extra Assistant Judge came to a contrary conclusion.2. A preliminary point has been raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleadenen-behalf of the State. His contention is that the Charity Commissioner passed the order on 29th October 1954 while the application under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 was made to the District Court on 11th January 1955. He contends that an application under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act should be made within 60 days as provided in Section 72 of the said Act and hence the District Court was not correct in considering the application and deciding it after the period of limitation. He also contends that Sections 5 and 12 of the Indian Limitation Act do not apply to an application under Section 72 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Umraomiya Akbarmiya Malek Vs. Bhulabhai Mathurbhai Patel and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-1964
Reported in: (1965)6GLR788
N.K. Vakil, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and the only question that arises for consideration is the interpretation of Clause (d) of Section 31A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act No. LXVII of 1948 as it stands after its amendment by the Gujarat Act No. XVI of 1960. I shall for the sake of convenience refer to the main Act No. LXVII of 1948 in this judgment as the Act. The petitioner claimed to be the landlord of survey Nos. 922 and 928 admeasuring about 4 acres 20 Gunthas and 7 acres and 4 Gunthas respectively of village Vanod Taluka Thasra. He applied to the Mamlatdar under Section 29 read with Section 31 of the Act for possession from his tenant-respondent No. 1 in this petition. The Mamlatdar decided all the contentions raised by the tenant against him but dismissal the application of the landlord of the ground that he did not fulfil the conditions laid down in Section 31A Clause (d) of the Act. An appeal was filed against the find...
Tag this Judgment!Kadi Municipality Vs. New Chhotalal Mills Company Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-27-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Guj293
Bhagwati, J.(1) These three appeals involve common questions of law and the facts in all the three appeals are also similar barring difference only in the period in respect of which octroi duty has been claimed by the Kadi Municipality (herein after referred to as the Municipality) and paid by the New Chhotalal Mills Company Ltd (herein after referred to as the Company) and the amount of such octroi duty and it would therefore be sufficient if only the facts of the first appeal are set out in full and a mere reference to the period and the amount of octroi duty is made in so far as the second and third appeals are concerned. The history of the facts relevant for the purpose of these appeals dates back to 24th June 1933 when the Company purchased a Textile Mill from the Liquidator of the Laxmi Cotton Mills Company Limited at a public auction held by the District Judge, Mehsana. The Textile Mill was situate in Kadi comprised within the territories of the former State of Baorda. After pur...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. the State Transport Autho ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Guj248
Shelat, C.J.(1) This petition raises a question of interpretation of the notification No.S.O.1077 dated April 29, 1960, issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred upon it by section 47A read with section 48 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 64 of 1950, whereby the Central Government approved the scheme forwarded by the Government of Bombay relating to the re-organization on the Bombay State Road Transport Corporation and the dissolution of the Kutch State Road Transport Corporation and Saurashtra State Road Transport Corporation.(2) The petitioner corporation under section 47A(3)(b) of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. The Bombay Road Transport Corporation and Saurashtra State Road Transport Corporation were constituted under section 3 of the said Act. The third respondents held a permit under section 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act, IV of 1939, for plying stage carriages in respect of a route known Vallabhipur-Dhola Route. That permit was to expire on...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Anandilal Harilal Vs. the Additional Special Land Acquisition Of ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Guj212; (1964)GLR862
Bhagwati, J.(1) The Revision Application directed against an order made by the Taxing Office under Section 5(2) of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959, raises a short question of construction of Section 7(1) of the Act. the question arises in the following manner. The petitioner owned two plots of land situate in Manipur Town Planning Scheme, Ahmedabad. These plots were acquired by the Government by a notification dated 2nd Mat 1957 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioner claimed compensation for the acquisition of these plots at the rate of Rs. 13-25 nP per square yard in the course of proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition Officer, however, awarded compensation to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 4 per square yard in the case of one plot and at the rate of Rs. 3.50 nP per square yard in the case of the other. The petitioner thereupon applied for a reference under Section 18 and the Reference came up for hearing before the C...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrakunverba Vs. Randhirsinhji Chandrasinhji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-16-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Guj270
Metha, J. (1) This appeal arises from the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baroda, in Special Civil Suit No. 31 of 1957, dated 30th October 1958, by which he had decreed the plaintiff's claim for arrears of maintenance at Rs. 115/- per month and had accordingly awarded Rs. 2,640/- to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's claim was for Rs.300/- for herself, and Rs. 45/-, for pay of the three maid servants, in all Rs. 345/- per month.(2) The plaintiff is the widow of late Thakore of Gadboriad State, Omkarsinji, who expired on 17th February 1934. The defendant succeeded to the Gadi of the State, which was a semi-jurisdictional State, with civil, criminal and revenue jurisdiction. The Thakore had a right to recover custom, excise and land revenue. The plaintiff based her claim of maintenance on the Hindu Law and as the Gadboriad State was governed by the custom of primogeniture. After the death of her husband the Thakore's estate was taken under management for abo...
Tag this Judgment!Sehjatkhan Jummakhan Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-14-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Guj82; 1966CriLJ410
1. One Kishanlal Maganlal was convicted under Section 22(1) of the Bombay Public Conveyance Act. 1920, for keeping for hire a public conveyance, namely a two-wheeled cycle rickshaw without a licence granted by the Commissioner of Police After the conviction, the learned Chief City Magistrate, Ahmedabad, passed an order of confiscation, under Sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the said Act. After the order was passed, the present petitioner Sehjatkhan Jummakhan approached the learned Chief City| Magistrate. Ahmedahad, and challenged the order of confiscation on the ground that he was the owner and he was entitled !o be heard. The learned City Magistrate slated that he had already passed the order of confiscation and he could not do anything else. Hence this present revision application.2. If we look at the scheme of Section 22 of the Public Conveyance Act and bear fn mind the wording of that section, there is no provision in the Act or in the section requiring any person to be heard. Ther...
Tag this Judgment!Parmar Teja Kama and anr. Vs. Gadhecha Manilal Shavchand and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-07-1964
Reported in: (1964)5GLR978
B.J. Divan, J.1. The petitioners in this Civil Revision Application are the original debtors who applied to the Additional Subordinate Judge, Rahpar lor adjustment of their debts alleging that opponents Nos.7, 8 and 9 in this Civil Revision Application were the successors of the original mortgagees in whose favour the ancestors of the debtors had created a mortgage in 1896-97 A.D. equivalent to S.Y. 1953 for 60 Kories equivalent to Rs. 20/-. The learned trial Judge decided the preliminary issues as required by Section 17 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and he held that the present petitioners were debtors within the meaning of the Act and that their total debts did not exceed Rs. 15 0 Thereafter there was no appeal against the finding recorded on this preliminary issue though an appeal could have been filed under the provision of Section 43 Sub-section (1) Clause (ii). When the matter proceeded on the merits the trial Court found ...
Tag this Judgment!Chhitabhai Ukabhai Vs. Naginlal Manchharam Dave and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-1964
Reported in: (1967)8GLR222
N.K. Vakil, J.1. The Petitioner in this petition was the tenant of survey No. 27 which admeasured 6 acres and 25 gunthas situated at village Kansia, Taluka Ankleshvar, District Broach. This tenant - had to give possession to the landlord respondent No. 1 of four acres out of this land as a result of an order passed under Section 34 as it then stood under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, on the ground that the landlord wanted to cultivate the land personally. Thereafter, the tenant filed a Tenancy Application No. 369 of 1957 on 29th March 1957 alleging that the landlord had ceased to cultivate personally the land given to him for personal cultivation and had leased out that land to some other persons and on that allegation he prayed that the land should be restored to him under-law. He alleged that the respondent No. 1 had leased out the land tip the present respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The Aval Karkun, Ankleshwar, passed an order restoring possession of the suit land to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›